MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306153818 · doi:10.46692/9781447359272.010

The Geography Of Sharing

2022· other· en· W4306153818 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benita Matofska, Sophie Sheinwald

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFair shareGeographyEconomic geographySociologyLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can geography have an influence on how much we share? Are some countries sanctuaries for Sharers? Is it possible to determine the most Sharing place in the world? If so, could it be New Zealand, with 75% of those moving there saying it's easy to fit in? What about Norway, where the more you share, the happier you become? Canada could be a good option, as personal freedom reigns there. You could vote for equal Sweden, or perhaps it's positive Paraguay? While Iceland boasts the smallest gender gap, maybe the strongest contender is the best country to live in – Switzerland? That said, Lithuania does offer the fastest Wi-Fi, so perhaps it pips the post as the easiest place to share?

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0610.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207