MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103563057 · doi:10.24043/isj.319

Seychelles, a vulnerable or resilient SIDS? A local perspective.

2015· article· en· W2103563057 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dean Philpot, Tim Gray, Selina M. Stead

Bibliographic record

VenueIsland Studies Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIsland Studies and Pacific Affairs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmall Island Developing StatesVulnerability (computing)Complementarity (molecular biology)CompromisePsychological resiliencePerspective (graphical)Resilience (materials science)PerceptionGeographyDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyClimate changeSocial psychologySocial scienceComputer securityEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses perceptions of residents of the Seychelles in the western Indian Ocean in relation to a long-running debate over small island developing states (SIDS) as to whether they are vulnerable or resilient. The results of data obtained from 25 key informant interviews and 70 household surveys conducted in 2013 showed that respondents perceived their country to be both vulnerable and resilient. Moreover, the data revealed that the relationship between vulnerability and resilience was complex, and that five interpretations of that relationship were evident: conflict, compromise, complementarity, symbiosis and transformation. Also, the conceptual distance between the two terms – vulnerability and resilience – was shown to be closer than may be commonly assumed. Finally, the paper questions whether the debate over vulnerability versus resilience is rightly confined to SIDS or could be equally applied to other states.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsland Studies JournalSame topicIsland Studies and Pacific AffairsFrench-language works237,207