MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417997128

Bijen in de Big City : urban beekeeping in Londen

2015· article· en· W2417997128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Zewuster

Bibliographic record

VenueBijenhouden · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Development and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtHobbyPolitical scienceVisual arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stadsimkeren of urban beekeeping is in de wereld een groeiend fenomeen. In Berlijn, Parijs, New York, Melbourne, Amsterdam, Vancouver en vele andere grote steden is het de afgelopen jaren een populaire hobby en booming business geworden. Ook in GrootBrittannie weten ze er alles van en geldt Londen als officieuze stadsimkershoofdstad. Op en rond allerlei beroemde gebouwen, parken en tuinen prijken bijenkasten zoals The Tate Modern, Fortnum and Mason, Lloyd’s of London, Regents Park en het St. Ermins Hotel. Maar wie zijn die Londense stadsimkers, wat beweegt hen? En is stadsimkeren eigenlijk wel goed voor de bijen en de buren?

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueBijenhoudenSame topicUrban Development and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207