MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914384199 · doi:10.24908/fg.v15i1.13148

Why Do Federal Studies Matter and What Does Matter?

2019· article· en· W2914384199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francesco Palermo

Bibliographic record

VenueFederal Governance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Key (lock)Order (exchange)Political scienceSubject matterPositive economicsLaw and economicsComputer scienceSociologyBusinessEconomicsLawComputer securityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In present times, federal studies are more topical than ever. This holds true, however, only if they focus on the key problems of contemporary societies they can help to address. Why then are federal studies so important and what should they be focusing on in order to be relevant?

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)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.262
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.262
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0120.036
Scholarly communication0.0300.029
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0150.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFederal GovernanceSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207