MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113661939 · doi:10.3152/147154606781765273

Conceptual frameworks for SIA revisited: a cumulative effects study on lead contamination and economic change

2006· article· en· W2113661939 on OpenAlex
Helen Ross, Tara K. McGee

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

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCumulative effectsLead (geology)Resilience (materials science)Conceptual frameworkPsychological resiliencePreferenceConceptual modelEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceSociologyPsychologyEconomicsSocial psychologySocial scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article trials three conceptual frameworks on an Australian case study of a small remote city suffering lead contamination, with cumulative effects from concurrent economic change due to downsizing in the mining industry. It interprets the usefulness of these frameworks, and explores two questions: can they apply to circumstances other than project assessment, and what are their relative merits as guides to SIA? All the frameworks reviewed can be used in non-project and cumulative SIA, although, if they had been used to predict the impacts in our case study, we may easily have been misled as to the resilience of the community. Choosing among these frameworks becomes a matter personal preference: each has different merits.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.345 · 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