MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

When Good Deeds Do Go Unpunished: How to Be Involved in the Distribution of the Local Budget

2023· article· en· W4318466172 on OpenAlexaff
I. Laktyushina

Bibliographic record

VenuePositive changes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHungarian Social, Economic and Educational Studies
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRussian federationDistribution (mathematics)Political sciencePublic administrationBusinessLawPublic relationsEconomic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lighting a street and paving the road to a house, erecting a monument, organizing a hiking trail or renovating a staircase in a building — these issues, and many others, are ones in which the public itself is entitled to decide on and get the funding to implement these ideas. Projects proposed by local residents are implemented today in most subjects of the Russian Federation in the form of socalled “initiative budgeting.” How it works, what territories need it and on what conditions — that’s what this article is about.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePositive changesSame topicHungarian Social, Economic and Educational StudiesFrench-language works237,207