MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045833965 · doi:10.1177/0002764204264260

Science, Technology, and Society

2004· article· en· W2045833965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David D. Kumar, James W. Altschuld

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Behavioral Scientist · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanacea (medicine)MultitudeScience, technology, society and environment educationContext (archaeology)Political scienceScience educationTechnology and societyEngineering ethicsEconomic growthPublic administrationSociologySocial scienceEngineeringLawEconomicsGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores avenues for fostering collaborations between the United States and Canada in science and technology in the context of the Science, Technology, and Society (STS) movement. STS deals with real-world applications and issues of science and technology, and by taking a real-world approach to science in schools and colleges in the United States and Canada, both nations would benefit. Benefits significantly outnumber drawbacks by solving problems stemming from a common border. The United States and Canada are better served by joining forces in regard to a multitude of science and technology concerns that cannot be solved singularly by either country. STS is not a panacea but a platform for fostering long-term collaborations between the United States and Canada in science and technology via secondary and postsecondary institutions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Behavioral ScientistSame topicConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationFrench-language works237,207