MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995443119

A quién pertenece el Ártico

2019· article· es· W2995443119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Fischetti

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeographyPolitical scienceArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Se estima que el fondo del oceano Artico alberga grandes reservas de gas, petroleo y minerales. Desde que el hielo ha empezado a derretirse, los paises riberenos han comenzado a reclamar amplias secciones del suelo oceanico. Debido a una legislacion y a unos criterios geologicos poco claros, las zonas reivindicadas por Noruega, Rusia, EE.UU., Canada y Dinamarca presentan grandes regiones comunes. Tres paises reclaman para si el Polo Norte. Las fronteras podrian acabar definiendose de manera metodica y basada en el consenso cientifico. Sin embargo, a la lentitud del proceso se suma una tension geopolitica creciente, lo que podria desestabilizar la toma de decisiones.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.008

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
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 venueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)Same topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207