MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6913015119 · doi:10.5683/sp2/vsrqyy

Canadian Gallup Poll, May 1983, #473_1

2019· dataset· en· W6913015119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime ministerGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPrime (order theory)Ideal (ethics)Prime time

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Gallup poll seeks the opinions of Canadians, on both political and social issues. The questions ask opinions about what decisions the Prime Minsiter should make and other political issues within the country, such as separatism. There are also questions on other topics of interest and importance to the country and government, including the price of food and drunk drivers. The respondents were also asked questions so that they could be grouped according to geographical variables. Topics of interest include: attending church; the church's involvement in politics; directing the country towards socialism; the effects of confederation on regions in Canada; the effect of free trade on Canada; the ideal number of children a family should have; the price of food; sending drunk drivers to jail; the strength of separatism in Quebec; the treatment of Aboriginals by the government; whether or not the Prime Minister should encourage courts to be tough on law breakers; whether or not the Prime Minister should encourage foregin investment; whether or not the Prime Minister should expand social welfare; and whether or not the Prime Minister should reduce government spending. Basic demographic variables are also included.

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)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.025
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.047

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 head0.272
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisFrench-language works237,207