MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084907743 · doi:10.1002/jid.1610

Where we stand and what we stand for: The DSA now and in the future

2009· article· en· W2084907743 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Science and Policy Research
Canadian institutionsDynamic Systems Analysis (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealDisciplineValue (mathematics)Subject (documents)Field (mathematics)Work (physics)Political scienceKnowledge basePublic relationsSociologyEconomic growthPublic administrationEconomicsLawEngineeringLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper looks at some visible and invisible challenges to development studies—seen as comprising a policy‐related field—in relation to the UK and the DSA and against the background of world economic turmoil. They include: a revaluation of the multi‐disciplinary and inter‐disciplinary nature of the subject, to retain its broad base; the need to work within a comparative framework, linking poor and rich countries and the importance of a value base for development research. A strong appeal is made for better efforts to educate a wider public, especially in collaboration with the Development Education Association. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.360 · 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