MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243867383 · doi:10.18356/81de3cb1-en

Acknowledgements

2019· book-chapter· en· W4243867383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in methods. Series F · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)EmpowermentPolitical scienceAgricultureDescriptive statisticsWork (physics)Economic growthAsset (computer security)GeographyPublic administrationSociologyEconomicsSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Guidelines for Producing Statistics on Asset Ownership from a Gender Perspective were prepared under the Evidence and Data for Gender Equality (EDGE) project, which is aimed at accelerating existing efforts to improve the capacity of countries to produce relevant and high-quality gender statistics. Building on the work of the Inter- Agency and Expert Group on Gender Statistics, the six-year project (2013–2018), a joint initiative of the Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women), was carried out in collaboration with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank. The project was funded by the Governments of Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4440.289

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.319 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in methods. Series FSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207