MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1494426558 · doi:10.14453/ltc.857

Editors’ introduction: challenging nation

2004· article· en· W1494426558 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Dauvergne, WWesley Pue

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw/text/culture · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What I most like about the idea of ‘challenging nation’ is what it has brought us over the past two years. Initially we wanted an idea that would act as an umbrella for people interested in Australia here at the University of British Columbia, a concept that would make sense of the diversity of their scholarship across disciplines. ‘Challenging nation’ worked for that purpose, and that group of people developed and supported the Challenging Nation Lectures in 2003–04. But once we invited eight other people, somehow plausibly connected to Australia with something to say about nation, the challenge took off in different ways.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.026

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw/text/cultureSame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207