MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W138226371 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1261

A Reply on "Charter Dialogue Revisited"

2007· article· en· W138226371 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have been given an opportunity to make a brief reply to the six commentaries on our "Charter Dialogue Revisited" article.'This seemed like a good idea, before we had actually seen the commentaries and discovered the extent of the thoughtful and wide-ranging ideas.There is no way to "reply" in a summary way to the many interesting points that are made in the commentaries, some in disagreement, and others more in the way of elaboration.All we will try to do in this reply is to identify points that are central to our thesis' and discuss the commentaries on those points.II.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.173
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.173
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.012
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0790.084
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicConflict of Laws and JurisdictionFrench-language works237,207