MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958082824 · doi:10.1007/s00267-019-01182-7

Response to Critique of “The Insignificance of Thresholds in Environmental Impact Assessment: An Illustrative Case Study in Canada”

2019· article· en· W2958082824 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerald G. Singh, Jackie Lerner, Cathryn Clarke Murray, Janson Wong, Megan Mach, Bernardo Ranieri, Guillaume Peterson St‐Laurent, Alice Guimaraes, Kai M. A. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsignificanceEnvironmental impact assessmentImpact assessmentPositive economicsNature ConservationEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental policyPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementLaw and economicsLawSociologyEconomicsEcologyPsychologySocial psychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0250.026
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0130.007
Research integrity0.0800.074
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ManagementSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207