MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W208152326

Promptness of FY 2002 First Quarter DOD Payments to the U.S. Treasury for District of Columbia Water and Sewer Services

2001· article· en· W208152326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Garold E. Stephenson, Richard B. Jolliffe, Henry F. Kleinknecht, Ronald W. Hodges, Lorin T. Pfeil

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryQuarter (Canadian coin)PaymentBusinessFinanceAuditAgency (philosophy)AccountingGeographyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report covers FY 2002 first quarter payments and is one in a series of reports discussing the promptness and completeness of DoD payments to the U.S. Treasury for District of Columbia water and sewer services. Public Law 106-554, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, requires the inspector general of each Federal agency to audit the agency's promptness in paying the District of Columbia for water and sewer services. The audit reports must be submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 15 days of the start of each quarter. The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority supplies both water and sewer services to Federal agencies and DoD Components within the National Capital Region. The U.S. Treasury is the collection agent for Federal agencies and DoD Components water and sewer payments, with the U.S. Treasury submitting a single payment to the Water and Sewer Authority. The DoD Components, composed of 17 separate installations, sites, and organizations, are required to make advance quarterly payments to the U.S. Treasury for estimated bills on anticipated water usage in FY 2002.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.232
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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Same topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207