MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Traditional Knowledge in Explanation Object of Declaration of Intention on Commercial Paper and Reflection

2013· article· en· W1828823015 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jin Jin-hua, AO Yejing

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEducational Reforms and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationObject (grammar)Unitary stateReflection (computer programming)EpistemologyLawSociologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unitary constructivism theory in the traditional act on commercial paper is based on non-causative nature of act on commercial paper, which believes that the right of commercial paper is established by declaration of intention on the commercial paper, and the content of declaration of intention can only be confirmed by recording of the commercial paper and declaration of intention on the commercial paper only regards the literary content recorded on the commercial paper as the explanation object. However, as a result of the relative non-causative nature of the act on commercial paper, we should not lump under one head that explanation of declaration of intention on the commercial paper only has the object of literary recording on the commercial paper and at least the situation of relationship of causes between direct parties involved can only constitute content of declaration of intention.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.054
Scholarly communication0.0080.015
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicEducational Reforms and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207