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

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1050.064

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 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
GenreEditorial

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