MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6899257119 · doi:10.58079/syul

Politistes et praticiens des réformes électorales

2017· article· fr· W6899257119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenEdition (OpenEdition) · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Work (physics)Government (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

J'apprends, grâce au blog du projet Making Electoral Democracy Work, que l'Electoral Law Journal publie un très intéressant dossier sur les réformes électorales en Europe et au Canada, et sur les interactions entre les "savants" et les "ingénieurs" de ces réformes : In a symposium recently published in the Election Law Journal, we offer new insights on this topic by offering a view from outside of the US. We invited five political scientists from Europe and Canada who have been involved in e...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpenEdition (OpenEdition)Same topicFrench Historical and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207