MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W175230548

Пространственная структура агломерации Оштогам

2014· article· ru· W175230548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueИзвестия Российского государственного педагогического университета им. А. И. Герцена · 2014
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Systems and Logistics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban agglomerationHuman settlementGeographyEconomic geographyRegional scienceTransport engineeringEngineeringArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The key factors and criteria that influence the layout organization of urban agglomerations in Canada have been examined based on the example of urban Oshtogam agglomerations uniting such major cities as Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton. The main characteristics of cities and settlements, as well as the peculiarities of their spatial organization in accordance with the time zones of transport and accessibility are described on the basis of the examined settling connections in the structure of agglomerations identified.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.016

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.184 · 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