MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2216950784

Owner Committee and Property Service Enterprise

2015· article· en· W2216950784 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiang Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConstruction Engineering and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessSettlement (finance)LawsuitService (business)Property (philosophy)Property managementFunction (biology)InstitutionAmbiguityLawEstatePublic relationsFinanceReal estateMarketingPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the development of housing construction field, residential communities gradually establish the owners’ committee which also leads to improvement of the property management system. Even though current law has defined the function and power of owners’ meeting and owners’ committee as the execution institution, legal status of owners’ committee is still relatively ambiguity during the issue settlement which leads to uncertain qualification of owners’ committee as the legal representative and whether has legal right to bring a lawsuit for handling the disputes. What’s more, relationship between owners’ committee and enterprises’ property service suffers much more discussion due to unclear legal status of owners’ committee. This thesis canalizes the relationship between owners’ committee and enterprises that provide property service, offers construction suggestions on completely fulfilling function capacity of owners’ committee and accelerates the owners’ development through self management from the perspective of owners’ committee legal status.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicConstruction Engineering and SafetyFrench-language works237,207