MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2111243588 · doi:10.1017/s0008423905259978

Between Colliding Worlds: The Ambiguous Existence of Government Agencies for Aboriginal and Women's Policy

2005· article· en· W2111243588 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bonita Lawrence

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguityPremiseGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Social worldsPublic administrationPolitical scienceSociologyPolitical economyEpistemologySocial sciencePhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between Colliding Worlds: The Ambiguous Existence of Government Agencies for Aboriginal and Women's Policy, Jonathan Malloy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press/IPAC, 2003, pp. x, 217. This book explores the complex relationship between “special policy agencies” created to address the needs of specific social groups, and the social movements that arise to advocate for these groups. Its main premise is that special policy agencies exist in a state of permanent—and highly useful—ambiguity, forming a conduit that enables the conflicting worlds of social movements and governments to articulate their highly distinct agendas in a manner comprehensible to both “worlds.”

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0210.045
Scholarly communication0.0310.019
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political Science→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→