MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527640955 · doi:10.1016/s1364-8152(01)00059-7

Progress in integrated assessment and modelling1A Summary of a workshop on Integrated Assessment and Modelling, held at EcoSummit 2000: Integrating the Sciences, Halifax, June 18–22, 2000. See Costanza and Jorgensen (2001) for a further report on Ecosummit.1

2002· article· en· W1527640955 on OpenAlexaffabout
P.D. Parker, Rebecca Letcher, Anthony J. Jakeman, Marisa Beck, Mark Harris, R. M. Argent, Matt Hare, Claudia Pahl‐Wostl, Alexey Voinov, Matty Janssen, Patrick J. Sullivan, M. Scoccimarro, Anthony M. Friend, M. Sonnenshein, Diana Leonard Barker, Luboš Matějı́ček, D. Odulaja, Peter Deadman, Kelly Albert A. Lim, Guy R. Larocque, P. Tarikhi, Cameron S. Fletcher, A. Van Put, Thomas Maxwell, A. Charles, Heather Breeze, Naoki Nakatani, Shailendra Mudgal, Wataru Naito, O.O. Osidele, I-M Eriksson, Ulrik Kautsky, B. Naeslund, Linda Kumblad, Roger Park, S. Maltagliati, Philippe Girardin, Andrea Emilio Rizzoli, David A. Mauriello, Ralph Hoch, Dominique Pelletier, John Reilly, Rannveig Ólafsdóttir

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Modelling & Software · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityWestern UniversityNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Environmental impact assessmentPessimismProduct (mathematics)Work (physics)Management scienceScale (ratio)Operations researchEnvironmental planningEngineeringComputer sciencePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.019
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0040.005
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations232
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Modelling & SoftwareSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207