MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1512828777 · doi:10.4000/ahrf.10757

Richard Labunski, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights

2009· article· fr· W1512828777 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Tessier

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales historiques de la Révolution française · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsInstitut d'Histoire de l'Amérique Française
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceBill of rightsLaw and economicsArtPhilosophyLawEnvironmental ethicsSociologyHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C'est la biographie intellectuelle d'un homme politique et d'un juriste à l'influence discrète mais certaine, James Madison, qu'a publiée Richard Labunski, docteur en sciences politiques et licencié en droit, aujourd'hui enseignant à l'Université du Kentucky, qui est également auteur d'un ouvrage sur la Constitution américaine et de deux essais sur le Premier Amendement.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales historiques de la Révolution française→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→