MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W143465966

Malaysia Studies: Looking Back Moving Forward

2005· article· en· W143465966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dato’ Dr. Abdul Rahman Embong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Political scienceLibrary scienceEconomic growthHistoryEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The MSC4 is the flagship of the Malaysian Social Science Association, held biennially since 1997. Its objectives are to bring together scholars from Malaysia and abroad to deliberate on the various dimensions of Malaysian studies, to draw comparisons between Malaysia and other countries, to strengthen networking and community building among social science scholars, and to initiate collaborative activities of mutual benefit such as research, publications, workshops, and others so as to advance Malaysian studies. This year’s MSC the fourth in the series is the biggest so far showcasing four keynote addresses, three special plenary sessions, 140 papers presented in 38 concurrent sessions, two book launches, and a book fair participated by four national and international publishers. It has also brought together about 200 participants – the majority from the various Malaysian universities, while about a quarter from abroad, namely scholars from the ASEAN region (Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines), as well as from Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Finland, the United States, and Mexico. MSC4 is without doubt the most significant and the biggest Malaysian studies congress ever held in this region.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.021
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAsian Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207