MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W266793283 · doi:10.9776/13402

Literature Review: How Content Analysis Is Used to Study Human Rights Violations in Political Science?

2013· article· en· W266793283 on OpenAlexaff
Tatiana Vashchilko, Lu Xiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Conflict and Governance
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Human rightsConstruct (python library)PoliticsContent analysisData sciencePolitical scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceSociologySocial scienceData miningLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study focuses on the review of the existing datasets on human rights violations to understand the types of data sources used to construct the datasets and the methodologies to measure the degree of human rights violations in different countries. This poster paper reports, preliminary findings from Political Science research in 1971-2012 on the scope of employed human right violations’ data and methodologies.

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)0.141
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.505
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1410.505
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0950.113
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0170.022
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolitical Conflict and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207