MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063651347 · doi:10.1017/s104909651000137x

How to Persuade Government Officials to Grant Interviews and Share Information for Your Research

2010· article· en· W2063651347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Irene Wu, Bojan Savić

Bibliographic record

VenuePS Political Science & Politics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Political Science Association
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPolitical sciencePublic administrationPublic relationsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rick Farmer's article focuses on ways in which academic political scientists can influence policymakers. At the Toronto meeting of the Working Group on Practicing Politics, government political scientists also recognized that academics often are frustrated by the process of getting information from the government and cooperation from officials.

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)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.278
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.278
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0140.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.052

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 head0.446
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePS Political Science & PoliticsSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207