MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474179999

Social cohesion in Australia

2008· article· en· W2474179999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Markus

Bibliographic record

Venue4Rs 2008 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)ImmigrationAustralian studiesBenchmarkingSociologyGeographySocial sciencePolitical scienceManagementLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Scanlon Foundation social cohesion surveys were conducted in Australia during June-August 2007. They involved a national survey of 2,000 respondents and five local area surveys conducted in regions of high immigrant concentration, with a total of 1,500 respondents. The design of the questionnaire was based on a review of international and Australian studies and included questions to enable benchmarking of findings against earlier research. The 2007 surveys mark a significant Australian development in the study of attitudes analysed through the prism of birthplace and ancestry. This presentation will consider the major findings within five domains of social cohesion: belonging, social justice, acceptance, participation and self-worth. It will give particular attention to findings for New South Wales and Sydney, interpreted with attention to Australia-level data and recent Canadian and British research. The broad Australian indicators point to a society that is succeeding in establishing and maintaining a high level of positive outcomes: the challenges are within the domains of participation and acceptance, with a significant level of misunderstanding between birthplace groups and experience of discriminatory and hostile behaviour.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue4Rs 2008Same topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207