MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233183956 · doi:10.1080/01426390701231507

Japan 10±, China 1: A first attempt at explaining the numerical discrepancy between Japanese-style gardens outside Japan and Chinese-style gardens outside China

2007· article· en· W4233183956 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLandscape Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Crisis of the 21st Century
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStyle (visual arts)ChinaWorld War IIEast AsiaGeographyHistoryEconomyArchaeologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper canvasses explanations for the nearly ten-fold discrepancy between the number of Japanese-style gardens constructed outside Japan and Chinese-style gardens constructed outside China since the 1860s. The East Asian countries' histories of engagement with the West and the purposes for which publicly accessible gardens were built occupy much of the discussion. Various explanations are suggested including access to information about the gardens, Japan's relative economic strength, that of the United States, Canadian attempts after the Second World War to make amends for internments, and the consequences for designers of Chinese-style gardens of Japanese-style gardens having got there first.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.253 · 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