MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093276343 · doi:10.1080/14615517.2013.872848

A basic need for integration – bringing focus to the scoping process

2014· article· en· W2093276343 on OpenAlexaff
Larry W. Canter, Bill Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationProcess (computing)SustainabilityProcess managementFocus (optics)Engineering ethicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental planningManagement scienceBusinessEngineeringLawEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the lead article in this edition, we have the following observations made mostly on our professional practice. First, good scoping is essential for effective impact assessment (IA) but is rarely done well. Second, interdisciplinary teams are also essential for effective IA and are often used. Third, the use of sustainability as a tool for doing IA is intellectually attractive but may conflict with IA legislation and so should be used only with care.

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)0.342
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.438
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3420.438
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0120.030
Scholarly communication0.0370.056
Open science0.0060.040
Research integrity0.0210.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.381 · 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
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

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207