MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044193102 · doi:10.1080/14649357.2012.731210

What's Love Got To Do With It? Illuminations on Loving Attachment in Planning

2012· article· en· W2044193102 on OpenAlexaff
Libby Porter, Karen Umemoto, Lisa K. Bates, Marisa Zapata, Michelle C. Kondo, Andrew Zitcer, Robert W. Lake, Annalise Fonza, Bjørn Sletto, Aftab Erfan, Leonie Sandercock

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory & Practice · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsVancouver Community CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtArt historyVisual artsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10.1080/14649357.2012.731210Original image by Libby Porter, Monash University, Melbourne, AustraliaIn 2009, the People of Color Interest Group (POCIG) sponsored a round table at the annual Associat...

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.006

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlanning Theory & PracticeSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207