MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471908898

CRLR and DRDLR - annual reports and financial statements : good governance - legislation update

2015· article· en· W2471908898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annelize Crosby

Bibliographic record

VenueFarmBiz · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentLegislationQuarter (Canadian coin)Government (linguistics)AccountingCorporate governanceBusinessFinancial statementPublic administrationPolitical scienceFinancePoliticsLawAudit
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last quarter of the year, all government departments and public entities have to submit their annual reports and financial statements to Parliament. This is to enable the particular parliamentary committees to effectively exercise their oversight functions. In the first quarter, these government departments and public entities submit strategic plans which contain specific performance and budgetary targets, and by the end of the year they have to report on whether these were in fact achieved.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0110.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.026

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 venueFarmBizSame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207