MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235865919 · doi:10.1017/s0829320100009807

Rosanna L. Langer Defining Rights and Wrongs: Bureaucracy, Human Rights, and Public Accountability. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007, 191 p.

2009· article· en· W4235865919 on OpenAlexaffabout
Melanie R. Bueckert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBureaucracyAccountabilityPolitical scienceHuman rightsPublic administrationLaw and economicsLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.008

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et SociétéSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207