MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W28474454 · doi:10.1080/713659422

Recognition, rights and resources: negotiating mining agreements on Indigenous lands in Canada and Australia

2013· article· en· W28474454 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret A. Stephenson

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Alcohol Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousNegotiationContext (archaeology)JurisprudenceGovernment (linguistics)Indigenous rightsPolitical scienceResource (disambiguation)DutyProperty rightsLand rightsBusinessEnvironmental resource managementLawEnvironmental planningGeographyHuman rightsEconomicsArchaeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research estimates the prevalence of alcohol use among Australian secondary students in 1996 and examines trends in alcohol prevalence over a 12-year period. A national randomly selected representative sample of 434 secondary schools participated in the 1996 study. Eghty students were selected randomly from each school and completed a questionnaire anonymously. Current drinking (drinking alcohol in the week before the survey) increased with age from 17% of boys and 10% of girls aged 12 to 56% of boys and 50% of girls aged 17. Comparisons with data collected by similar surveys in 1984, 1987, 1990 and 1993 showed that while fewer 12-15-year-olds were current drinkers in 1996 than in 1984 or 1987, the 1996 proportion was no different from the 1993 proportion. In 1996, there were more hazardous drinkers among male current drinkers aged 12-15 than in any other survey period. Among 16-and 17-year-olds, there were more current drinkers in 1996 than in 1993 or 1990, and more male and female current drinkers were drinking at hazardous levels in 1996 than in 1987 and 1990. Extrapolating from the 1996 findings, nearly 424000 students aged 12-17 years were current drinkers.

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 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 score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Alcohol ReviewSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207