MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using biometrics to revisualize the canada–u.s. Border

2008· book-chapter· en· W4388058766 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shoshana Magnet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyFree trade agreementPolitical scienceInternational tradeGeographyFree tradeEconomic historyLawHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stretching between the two countries for more than 5000 miles, the boundary between the United States and Canada is described as the longest undefended border in the world. More than 200 million people cross the border annually, making it the world’s largest trading relationship. Bilateral trade between the two countries is valued at close to $680 billion Canadian dollars. More than $1.5 billion dollars is exchanged across the border on a daily basis.2 Extensive partnerships between the United States and Canada govern this border. From the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military accords, the list of bilateral initiatives between the two countries is extensive. The author would like to thank Robert Smith, Celiany Rivera-Velazquez, Amy Hasinoff, Aisha Durham, Himika Bhattacharya, Helen Kang, Carolyn Randolph, Jillian Baez, Kent Ono, C. L. Cole, Paula Treichler, Ian Kerr, Jane Bailey, Daphne Gilbert, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207