MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017299419 · doi:10.5779/hypothesis.v4i1.49

Awareness in action: MBP students help sexual violence survivors in DRC

2008· article· en· W2017299419 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Cathy Nangini, Brad MacIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueHypothesis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Sexual violencePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCriminologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DRC, formerly Zaire, is a large country in central Africa roughly equal to the size of Western Europe. It is exceedingly rich in natural resources such as gold, copper, diamonds, petroleum and coltan (Columbite-tantalite)—the vital ingredient in cell phones, jet engines and computer chips. The country’s infrastructure, including the healthcare system, was left in tatters after decades of corruption under Mobutu’s dictatorship (1965-1997). By the time his rule ended, the country was so weakened that a year later Rwanda and Uganda, the DRC’s eastern neighbours, launched an attack to gain control over the plentiful natural resources. This fuelled six years of what some have called “Africa’s First World War” (1), involving the armed struggle between the government and numerous rebel groups from both within and around the DRC. Approximately 3.9 million people have died between 1998, when the major conflict started, and 2004 (1, 2). Currently, over 15,000 UN peacekeepers, particularly in the volatile eastern region, are deployed in the DRC under MONUC (Mission de l’Organisation des Nations Unies en Republique Democratique du Congo (3).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.003

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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 topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207