MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252911106 · doi:10.1017/s159824080000919x

Chinese Social Policy in a Time of Transition. Edited by Douglas J. Besharov and Karen Baehler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. 314 pp. $74.00 (cloth). - Welfare Through Work: Conservative Ideas, Partisan Dynamics, and Social Protection in Japan. By Mari Miura. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012. 224 pp. $39.95 (cloth). - The Korean State and Social Policy: How South Korea Lifted Itself from Poverty and Dictatorship to Affluence and Democracy. By Stein Ringen, Huck-Ju Kwon, Ilcheong Yi, Taekyoon Kim, and Jooha Lee. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 146 pp. $58.00 (cloth).

2015· article· en· W4252911106 on OpenAlexaff
André Laliberté

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of East Asian Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJapanese History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDictatorshipWelfare statePovertyDemocracyState (computer science)Economic historyPolitical scienceSociologyPolitical economyHistoryPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chinese Social Policy in a Time of Transition. Edited by Douglas J. Besharov and Karen Baehler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. 314 pp. $74.00 (cloth). - Welfare Through Work: Conservative Ideas, Partisan Dynamics, and Social Protection in Japan. By Mari Miura. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012. 224 pp. $39.95 (cloth). - The Korean State and Social Policy: How South Korea Lifted Itself from Poverty and Dictatorship to Affluence and Democracy. By Stein Ringen, Huck-Ju Kwon, Ilcheong Yi, Taekyoon Kim, and Jooha Lee. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 146 pp. $58.00 (cloth). - Volume 15 Issue 3

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.007

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of East Asian StudiesSame topicJapanese History and CultureFrench-language works237,207