Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achievement motivation, 143 Acquisition, development, utilization, and maintenance (ADUM), 104 Acquisition practices, 105-106 Act utilitarianism, 115 Affective mechanism, 122 Africa, ethnicity in, 7-11 Africa invention, 15-17 and institutions, 19-20 and psychology of Africans, 21-23 and role structures, 20-21 and tribes, 17-19 African continental free trade area (AFCFTA), 7 African societies, 49 African systems, 18 Afrobarometer, 59, 84 countries in afrobarometer surveys for ethnic obligation, 156 Agency, 42-43, 120 Agenda 2063, 7 Akaike's information criteria (AIC), 69 Akan, 4 American cultures, 48 Analysis of variance (ANOVA), 98 Antecedents, 46-47 Anthropological Society of London, 18 Anthropological studies, 8 Anthropology, 40 Asia, tribe in, 126-129 Attraction-selection-attrition model (ASA model), 104 Australasia, tribe in, 132 Authenticity, 8 Bayesian information criteria (BIC), 69 Benevolence, 41-43, 120 Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, 10, 16 Black Africans, 7 Boundaries of societies, 137 Bribery for work, 94 Canada, tribal groups in, 153 Centralization, 42-43, 99 Circumplex model of EO, 137-141 Classical strain theory, 142 Cognitions, affect, and behavior (CAB), 22, 29 Cognitive mechanism, 122 Collective relative deprivation (CRD), 85-86 Colonialism, 18 Communication, 48 Companionate leadership, 117 Compensation, 111-113 Conditional dynamics, 93-94, 98 Configural approaches, 147 Conflict, 116 Congenital obligation, 36, 39 Consequentialist ethics, 149 Constructivism, 34 Context, 48, 58-59, 89-90 Contingencies, 89 conceptual model of contingencies of ethnic obligation, 91 conceptual models of curvilinear dynamics, 92 mediators, 99 Corporate political activity (CPA), 120 Cosmopolitanism, 48, 95-96 Countermobilization, 36 Instrumentalism, 32-35 Instrumented ethnic obligation, 38 Integration model of ethnicity, 36 Interest perspective, 143 Interest theory, 53, 143 Internal environment, 103 International business, 121-122 Intersectionality, 49 Intraclass correlation (ICC), 69 Job opportunities, 54 Kemet (KMT), 7, 9 Kenya postelection violence of 2007-2008, 85 Key performance indicators (KPIs), 56 Kikuyus, 4 Knowledge, skills, attitudes, and other characteristics (KSAOs), 105
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.447 | 0.248 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".