MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616898230 · doi:10.15834/cimj.2017.16

Quantitative correlation of worldview to resource development conflict

2017· article· en· W2616898230 on OpenAlex
Murray Lytle, Michael Hitch

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

VenueCIM Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicNatural Resources and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsCanada Energy Regulator
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resource development conflicts arise largely due to differences in worldview between those who support and those who oppose development.This paper illustrates how societies and civilizations with different worldviews produce different levels of creative and economic energy.A questionnaire was created to build a database of responses to test whether worldview and resource development are correlated.Factor and multivariate regression analysis determined correlations for respondent groupings.Results showed a positive correlation between the respondents' worldviews and their attitudes toward resource development.Correlations became stronger as the homogeneity of the sample subgroups increased.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.193 · 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