MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532858740 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3047

Book Review: Challenging Boardroom Homogeneity by Aaron Dhir

2016· article· en· W2532858740 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cheryl L. Wade

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGray (unit)PoliticsRacial profilingWhite (mutation)African americanCriminologyLawPolitical scienceSociologyRace (biology)Gender studiesMedicineEthnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, US citizens have heard a great deal about diversity as it relates to race in general, and African Americans in particular.A string of deaths of unarmed African American men at the hands of white police officers has galvanized the nation's attention.When Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, Missouri in August, 2014, there was a considerable amount of discussion about the gross underrepresentation of African Americans on the police force and among local politicians.Many observers believed that a racially-homogenous police force and the homogeneity among political leaders partially explained the mistreatment of African Americans at the hands of the white Americans in charge.In the months after Brown's death, more African Americans were killed by police officers.Some of the incidents, including the shooting death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, were highly publicized.But Gray's death was different-while everyone in charge in Ferguson was white, in Baltimore the state prosecutor, mayor, police chief, and several elected officials were African American.Even the group of six police officers involved in the incident was diverse: Three of the officers charged were black.3

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.020

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207