MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252992569 · doi:10.1080/13567880701250584

The Baker–Hamilton Report

2006· article· en· W4252992569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueStrategic Comments · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffensiveAdministration (probate law)CriticismQuarter (Canadian coin)Government (linguistics)Political scienceSpanish Civil WarGulf warLawCriminologyHistoryPsychologyEconomic historyEngineeringPhilosophyOperations researchArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Iraq Study Group’s insinuation that the situation in Iraq was more bloodily chaotic than the Bush administration had allowed; the assessment that American forces had not stemmed the violence and could not be expected to do so; the proposal to withdraw most troops in a little over a year regardless of what the Iraqi government does; and the endorsement of a highly detailed ‘diplomatic offensive’ all amounted to a comprehensive repudiation of the administration’s policies. Yet, upon its release, the report met heavy criticism from nearly every quarter. If it has any effect on American discourse on the war, it is that the report has now liberated Washingtonians to acknowledge the risk of defeat.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrategic CommentsSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207