MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214770089 · doi:10.1057/9780230621718_2

Conceptual Considerations

2009· book-chapter· en· W4214770089 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Damien Kingsbury

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeacebuilding and International Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndonesianIndependence (probability theory)BallotSovereigntyPopulationGeographyGovernment (linguistics)DirtQuarter (Canadian coin)Political scienceLawHistoryPoliticsVotingSociologyCartographyArchaeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On August 30, 1999, the overwhelming majority of eligible East Timor’s people, wearing their best freshly washed and pressed clothes, walked along dirt tracks from their remote villages and towns, out of the hills and valleys, to queue before sunrise to be sure to be able to cast a vote in a UN-supervised ballot to determine whether their land would remain what was claimed as a part of Indonesia. After twenty-four years of resistance to Indonesian occupation and rule, during which around a quarter of all East Timorese lost their lives, and in the midst of an orchestrated campaign of violence, destruction, and intimidation, more than three-quarters of the people of East Timor voted in favor of independence. The Indonesian government’s claim to sovereignty over the disputed territory was deemed by a majority of the local population to be illegitimate, and the principle alternative, a local basis for complete and legitimate representation, asserted itself in its place.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.019
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.010

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicPeacebuilding and International SecurityFrench-language works237,207