MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962660921 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/gr7qt

CRITICAL REVIEW: Kebijakan Pupuk, Persepsi dan Implikasi Petani untuk Masa Depan Pembangunan Pertanian

2017· article· id· W6962660921 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2017
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureCenter (category theory)Agricultural developmentSustainable development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tulisan ini bersumber dari jurnal Sustainable Agriculture Research; Vol. 1, No. 2; 2012. Judul yang dikritisi berjudul “Assessment of Fertilizer Policy, Farmers’ Perceptions and Implications for Future Agricultural Development in Nepal “ ditulis oleh Nani Raut & Bishal K. Sitaula dari Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric), Agricultural University of Norway, Norway yang dipublikasikan pada tahun 2012 oleh Canadian Center of Science and Education

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.285
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.285
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0120.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.005

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
GenreReview

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 venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207