Stadspanelonderzoek Arnhem 1994
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opinion of the inhabitants of Arnhem about various aspects of living in Arnhem: general tasks of local government, public health, sports and recreation, perception of local government. Satisfaction with maintenance of streets, cycle paths and footpaths / city cleansing: use of containers, collection of bulky refuse/ use of cycle organizations for own refuse/ sources of information for separated collection of garbage / environmental annoyance: noise, stench/ problems caused by inconvenience: contacted General Practitioner / inconvenience caused by dogs / control of weeds / health / smoking and drinking behaviour / physical exercise / length and weight / need for information about prevention of illness / doing sports last year and next year: type of sports, how often, where, when, use of accommodations/ price or distance is a problem / cultural exposure during last year / evaluation of several aspects of the local museum of Arnhem and the theatre / use of public library / interested in artistic education / influence of inhabitants on local government / increase of livability of residential quarter / community centre / public order, public safety / municipal taxes / living expenses / complaints about local government / work: transport used for commuter traffic/ number of incomes in household. Background variables: basic characteristics/ residence/ housing situation/ household characteristics/ place of work/ occupation/employment/ income/capital assets/ education/ politics
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.661 | 0.343 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".