MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312985528 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4222512

International Law Association Committee on Participation in Global Cultural Heritage Governance - Executive Summary of Final Report (2022) (German)

2022· article· en· W4312985528 on OpenAlexaff
Andrzej Jakubowski, Lucas Lixinski, Thomas Adlercreutz, Marina Lostal, Kaare Bangert, Fernando Loureiro Bastos, Janet Blake, Nudrat Majeed, Aïda Tamer Chammas, Arshad Ghaffar, Clementine Bories, James A. R. Nafziger, Marine They, Victoria R. Nalule, Irene Calboli, Robert K. Paterson, Rodrigo Carlos Cespedes, Robert Peters, Kalliopi Chainoglou, Alexander Carl Dinopoulos, Kevin R. Chamberlain, Eleni Polymenopoulou, Patricia Conlan, Elvira Prado Alegre, Amy Strecker, Beatriz Barreiro Carril, Marie Cornu, Piers Davies, Astrid Reisinger Coracini, Marie Sophie de Clippele, Marc-André Renold, Yvonne Donders, Alessandro Chechi, Evelien Campfens, Alison Dundes Renteln, Craig Forrest, Aziz Tuffi Saliba, Nicholas Augustinos, Alice Lopes Fabris, Marcilio Toscano Franca‐Filho, Jorge Sanchez Cordero Davila, Manlio Frigo, Sebastián Green Martínez, Benedetta Ubertazzi, Louis van Wyk, Kristin Hausler, Sabine von Schorlemer, Toshiyuki Kono, Yoshiaki Sato, Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, Gyooho Lee, Jie Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeological Research and Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanExecutive committeeCorporate governanceAssociation (psychology)Political scienceLawCultural heritageExecutive boardAccountingPublic administrationManagementPsychologyBusinessGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.276 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicArchaeological Research and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207