MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972529207 · doi:10.5779/hypothesis.v3i1.30

The role of science in international politics: A tour of modern history in scientific journals

2008· article· en· W1972529207 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Eva Amsen

Bibliographic record

VenueHypothesis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical scienceHistorySocial scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is, of course, not really the case. All research is funded, and any situation that affects a country’s financial situation as a whole will ultimately have its effect on research. In turn, scientific findings are reported back to the community and will be subject to discussion, which may also result in a change in research policies. In this discussion, frequent and accurate communication between science and the public plays an important role.

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)0.009
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.040
Scholarly communication0.0250.026
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypothesisSame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207