MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1467362908 · doi:10.1017/upo9789382264927.005

Understanding Complexity

2012· book-chapter· en· W1467362908 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Buckles

Bibliographic record

VenueFoundation Books · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban and Rural Development Challenges
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvictionVictoryAction (physics)Public relationsPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The small victory for the 47 families with solid title to their land in Nadodewadi rekindled the inquiry's sense of purpose and inspired the Katkari to take up once again the goal of acquiring gaothan for their hamlets. Over a period of several months, the various gaothan action committees once again began to contact the research team and ask for meetings. The threat of eviction was as tangible as ever. People said that they wanted to do something, but were not sure what. The research team was not sure either. We agreed, however, to explore the many issues that people were raising about why people in some hamlets were not willing to take a public stand on the gaothan issue, and to use this understanding to plan future actions. Fear of the landholders was very much at the forefront during these discussions and became a key question the Katkari wanted to explore further. This chapter discusses crucial results from the efforts to make sense of the Katkari's fear of landholders immediately following the gram sabha process. While for many Katkari, overcoming their fear initially seemed like an impossible task, their own interpretations of the threats they faced launched several new lines of action and inquiry. These unfolded in unexpected ways and at different rates. We needed new participatory inquiry and planning methods to take us beyond the simple chain of cause and effect revealed through the problem tree.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.037
Scholarly communication0.0130.020
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.449
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.115 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoundation BooksSame topicUrban and Rural Development ChallengesFrench-language works237,207