MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392089475 · doi:10.51644/9780889206984-fm

Front Matter

2006· paratext· en· W4392089475 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsECW Press (Canada)University of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFront (military)GeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thoroughgoing study of international secretariats might be entitled "What the International Civil Servant Really Does," as opposed to what he or she should do or is believed to do.The author interviewed international officials, studied the documents of the agencies involved, and reviewed the relevant literature in an intensive investigation of the political role played by international secretariats of United Nations organizations.He suggests that various factors are involved in determining the role of these secretariats-size, types of functions, the degree of control exercised by member governments, the relative technical expertise of these governments and secretariat officials, the personalities of these officials.An original conclusion is reached: civil services, at least at the international level, do not necessarily play a significant policy-making role in their organizations.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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)0.7450.660

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.274 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207