MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275805726

ИНФОРМАЦИОННЫЙ МЕНЕДЖМЕНТ И УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ИНФОРМАЦИЕЙ КАК КОМПОНЕНТЫ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ИНФОРМАЦИОННОЙ ПОЛИТИКИ КАНАДЫ

2013· article· ru· W2275805726 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueИсторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики · 2013
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Architecture and Usability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealiaPoliticsAdministration (probate law)Political scienceInformation policyPublic administrationPublic relationsComputer scienceLawLibrary science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article considers the content of the notions “information policy”, “information management”, “public information administration”. The author, studying the problem of the correlation of these notions content in the conditions of political realia in Canada, and representing their organizational structure, comes to the conclusion that the Canadian information policy has two sides –common strategy in the sphere of public information administration and information management.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0140.015
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.016
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.020
Open science0.0250.013
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.092

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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