MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979310144

Sukcesy i porażki polityki surowcowej

2017· article· pl· W2979310144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Maksymowicz

Bibliographic record

VenuePrzegląd Geologiczny · 2017
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeology and Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)PoliticsPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)National governmentNational PolicyForeign policyPublic policyPublic administrationEconomic growthBusinessEconomicsLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The successes and failures of raw material policy. A b s t r a c t. The work on “National raw materials policy” as a separate Government document is carried out in order to achieve the economic effects of the exploitation of domestic mineral resources. Other countries adapt such policies to the general national policy. Its creators in those countries are independent scientific and business communities of national and global importance. An example of the creation of such a policy is Robert Friedland’s geological exploration school in Canada. It is successful on both a national and global scale. Its essence is not a rigid document, but the mobilization of the most talented people in this sector, which are focused around a political scientist, who is familiar not only with the geology, but also has knowledge about people of this profession. Only this kind of policy could be comparably successful to the post-war “Polish geological school” that was organized on a basis of similar principles as that in Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrzegląd GeologicznySame topicGeology and Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207