MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038299323 · doi:10.1080/713999565

'Viewing the Iceberg from Down Under': A New Zealand Perspective

2001· article· en· W2038299323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. David McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueCommonwealth and Comparative Politics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthPoliticsPolitical sciencePublic administrationSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The image of an iceberg is used to analyse New Zealand's role in the Commonwealth at all levels. The visible tip is made up of the Commonwealth Games, the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth and the CHOGMS. Hidden beneath the water-line of popular attention are three layers: the political/official Commonwealth of ministerial consultations and intergovernmental organisations; the 'People's Commonwealth' of NGOs and civil society; and the 'Corporate Commonwealth' of the Business Forum and the 'Commonwealth business culture'. The Commonwealth was New Zealand's original 'window on the world' and, along with Britain and Canada, New Zealand is one of the 'Group of Three' that participated in all the consultations since 1887. Today, the Commonwealth is only one of numerous international forums, where the country pursues its interests. But with a New Zealander as Secretary-General, and with considerable affinity with the Commonwealth's small state majority, New Zealand has found a regional role in the South Pacific as a substitute for its former role as an adjunct to British (then American) power.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.022
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommonwealth and Comparative PoliticsSame topicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and FederalismFrench-language works237,207