MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791353333 · doi:10.17863/cam.21351

Polar expertise and the Antarcticans

2018· article· en· W2791353333 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard C. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueApollo (University of Cambridge) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarAstrobiologyEnvironmental sciencePhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I remember attending an event about polar governance in Canada nearly a decade ago, where an Antarctic marine scientist did not understand why representatives of the Government of Nunavut were cynical about some of his interventions. ‘But what’s wrong with good governance?’, he protested. The Nunavut policymakers saw the question as being one of whose models of governance. This interchange has always puzzled me. Jessica O’Reilly’s fascinating account of Antarctic scientists and policymakers, or ‘Antarcticans’, now goes some serious way in explaining why.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.016
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApollo (University of Cambridge)Same topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207