MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W153207139 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2013.4.3.2

Policy Research: Good or Bad?

2013· article· en· W153207139 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jerry P. White

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousProcess (computing)Public relationsSightPolitical scienceSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada went through a tough discussion in July 2013 when it was revealed that between 1942 and 1952 unethical and harmful research was conducted on Aboriginal peoples, most of whom were children. Beyond simply condemning unethical research with Indigenous populations, we need to examine why this happened and understand what the implications and lessons are for "policy research" moving forward. Policy research is a powerful tool when conducted in the proper way. We must never lose sight of the reason we are engaged in the activity: to improve well-being through the improvement of understanding that leads to change. The research process must, itself, be part of the positive process.

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)0.426
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.516
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4260.516
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0240.111
Scholarly communication0.0640.048
Open science0.0070.012
Research integrity0.0410.055
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.462
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.157 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207