MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596590837

Four perspectives on population policies

2014· article· en· W2596590837 on OpenAlex
Urs P. Thomas

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environment and Pollution · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Economic growthBlameSustainable developmentEmpowermentSolidarityPolitical scienceRhetoricDevelopment economicsSociologyPolitical economyEconomicsGeographyPoliticsSocial psychologyLawPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This policy study placed population policies into the wider context of North–South relations and sustainable development policies by presenting four perspectives regarding this topic: The Lipservice for Solidarity Perspective is characterized by well–meaning pledges and rhetoric by industrialized countries, but it lacks a serious follow–up; The Blame the Rich Perspective puts too much emphasis on individual women's reproductive rights and industrialized countries' policy failures, while it tends to overlook ancient local constraints on women's empowerment, which are rooted in cultural and socioeconomic behavioural patterns and make exercising women's rights illusory; The Sustainable Development Perspective is considered to be on the right track, but population priorities tend to get lost among many other objectives; The Intergenerational Perspective is seen as the preferred analytical framework, because it focuses on collective aspects of the development process, and on the ecosystem's carrying capacity.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.257 · 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