MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924311181

Protecting Social Inclusion and Mobility in a Low Growth Scenario. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 100

2015· article· en· W2924311181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Günther Tichy

Bibliographic record

VenueWIFO Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial exclusionQuarter (Canadian coin)Inclusion–exclusion principleInclusion (mineral)Development economicsInclusive growthEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthPublic economicsSociologySocial scienceGeographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unusually rapid economic growth during the second quarter of the 20th century led to a marked reduction of sustained exclusion and discrimination against groups of persons. However, in the 1980s and 1990s, growth rates in industrialised countries began to drop; the different types of real and, more importantly, perceived social exclusion once again increased and became socially critical. The economic policy of the EU and its member countries has, however, not dealt systematically with the problem of exclusion, instead addressing it only in isolated, individual steps, with the main focus being efficiency and the bolstering of growth. This, however, cannot be expected to take place to such an extent that a "trickle down" effect would automatically reduce exclusion; there must be an active and innovative anti-exclusion policy. This report attempts to outline which problems have been neglected in the WWWforEurope concept, for which problems solutions have been proposed, and for which problems solutions still need to be worked out.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIFO StudiesSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207