MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389197838 · doi:10.21125/iceri.2023.2349

THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDG) IN THE STUDY OF EUROPEAN UNION LITIGATION – A BIGGER PLAN FOR CITIZENSHIP

2023· article· en· W4389197838 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maria Manuela Magalhães Silva, Dora Resende Alves

Bibliographic record

VenueICERI proceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Environmental Law and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKrell InstituteInternational Labour OrganizationUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaTechnological University DublinUniversidade do MinhoZayed UniversityUniversity of South AfricaUniversitat de BarcelonaInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialAoyama Gakuin UniversityUniversität zu LübeckCork Institute of TechnologyMinistry of Earth SciencesTechnische Universiteit DelftUniversity of Colorado Colorado SpringsUniversity College DublinUlster UniversityVrije Universiteit AmsterdamUniversity of OxfordUniversidad PanamericanaYork UniversityAalto-YliopistoUniversity of LethbridgeInternational Development Research CentreDoğu Akdeniz ÜniversitesiEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of Texas at DallasAnglia Ruskin UniversityRoyal Academy of EngineeringUniversity of BoltonUniversidade de AveiroUniversitetet i AgderLatvijas UniversitateBowling Green State UniversityLappeenranta University of TechnologyInter-American Development BankDrexel UniversityRyukoku UniversitySveučilište u ZagrebuNanyang Technological UniversityNational Science FoundationOklahoma State UniversityUniversity of HertfordshireCardiff UniversityMacEwan UniversityAppalachian State University
KeywordsCitizenshipPlan (archaeology)European unionSustainable developmentDevelopment planBusinessPolitical scienceInternational tradeEngineeringLawCivil engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

to IATED conferences to maintain high ethical standards.IATED shall guarantee the high technical and professional quality of the publications and that good practices and ethical standards are maintained.If unethical behaviors are identified, an investigation will be initiated, and pertinent actions will be taken.

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)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0150.088
Scholarly communication0.0310.026
Open science0.0030.018
Research integrity0.0190.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
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 venueICERI proceedingsSame topicInternational Environmental Law and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207