MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240765625 · doi:10.1017/s002205070600009x

EDITORS' REPORT, 2004/05

2006· article· en· W4240765625 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Economic History · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal case studies and regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMenzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of LondonUniversity of California, IrvineBinghamton UniversityUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueUniversity of TorontoHebrew University of JerusalemUniversity of HullVictoria UniversityUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillHarvard UniversityTrent UniversityUniversity of WollongongEuropean University InstituteVictoria University of WellingtonOhio State UniversityUniversity of ReadingUniversity of OxfordKing's College LondonDrexel UniversityUniversity of LeicesterUniversity of ExeterUniversity of BristolFranklin and Marshall CollegeUniversity of Northern IowaUniversity of EssexUniversity of South AustraliaMcGill UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityLehigh UniversityLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceVanderbilt UniversityTexas Christian UniversityGeorgetown UniversityDurham UniversityYork UniversityUniversitat Pompeu FabraSeoul National UniversityNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of RochesterUniversity of California, Los AngelesNorth Carolina State UniversityCarnegie Mellon UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of CambridgeTel Aviv UniversityUniversity of New South WalesUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of MinnesotaYeungnam UniversityCalifornia Institute of TechnologyTulane UniversityUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of PennsylvaniaSanta Clara UniversityYale UniversityMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsContent (measure theory)Action (physics)Computer scienceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Economic HistorySame topicLegal case studies and regulationsFrench-language works237,207