MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005708106 · doi:10.5539/ass.v8n4p90

Overview of Multiple Calculating Methods for Land Expropriation Compensation Standard --- A Case of Arable Land in Nanyang, Henan Province, China

2012· article· en· W2005708106 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoshan Hu, Ruiping Ran

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpropriationArable landUrbanizationCompensation (psychology)IndustrialisationGovernment (linguistics)BusinessChinaSocial securityNatural resource economicsEconomicsEconomic growthGeographyMarket economyAgricultureLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With accelerating of industrialization and urbanization, the speed of China farmland conversion is astonishing, and land expropriation compensation and interests of land deprived farmers generated thereby also become a focus the society. Although there have been qualitative improvement on both compensation for arable land and security of farmers’ social welfare in the last few years, the phenomena of forcible expropriation of land and low compensation for the land by the government in remote areas are still too numerous to mention and the issue of compensation for land deprived farmers is a crucial issue that is concerned with farmers’ interests and social security. Therefore, it is necessary to explore a legal and rational land expropriation compensation standard to guarantee interests of land deprived farmers.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207