MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scientific Uncertainty in Social Debates Around Risk

2014· other· en· W1574067761 on OpenAlexaff
S. Michelle Driedger

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScientific evidenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Process (computing)Sociology of scientific knowledgeUncertaintyRisk analysis (engineering)Risk assessmentManagement sciencePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEpistemologyComputer scienceSociologyBusinessSocial scienceEngineeringPhilosophyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantitative risk assessments based on scientific understandings of a risk issue are often used in managing risk controversies in a policy domain. However, in several areas of risk, particularly in an environment and health domain, managing uncertainties in scientific knowledge is difficult and complex. It is important to understand how the production and use of scientific evidence can be understood as a social process and how scientific evidence may be used in regulatory decision making.

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.033
Scholarly communication0.0180.014
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207