MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300912614 · doi:10.1017/s1472669616000062

Politics and the Art of Indexing: Teamwork in a Legislative Environment

2016· article· en· W2300912614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cheryl Caballero, Erica Smith, Rosalind Guldner

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal Information Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureSearch engine indexingPoliticsTeamworkPolitical scienceSet (abstract data type)Index (typography)Library sciencePublic administrationComputer scienceWorld Wide WebLawProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article Cheryl Caballero, Erica Smith and Rosalind Guldner, members of the Ontario Legislative Assembly indexing team, describe the challenges of indexing legislative text and how they set about meeting them. A version of their article was originally published in The Indexer in June 2015*.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0370.039
Scholarly communication0.0400.025
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.013
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.

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLegal Information ManagementSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207