MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095019064 · doi:10.1080/03050718.2002.9986631

Improving legislative drafting capacity

2002· article· en· W2095019064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bilika H. Simamba

Bibliographic record

VenueCommonwealth Law Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Language and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureLegislationLawPrincipal (computer security)Political scienceLegislative assemblyPublic administrationPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.326
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.326
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0190.025
Open science0.0050.013
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2520.100

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommonwealth Law BulletinSame topicLegal Language and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207