MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999397298

Citizens' assemblies on the future of federalism in Belgium and Canada: how to know what the citizens want?

2008· other· en· W6999397298 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Repository and Bibliography (University of Liège) · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodDysgeusiaTSG101DiafiltrationLiquationHyporeflexiaEmperipolesisDemotion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How to know what the citizens want or at least what the citizens think (of federalism in Belgium and Canada? To answer this question, a particular methodology—citizens’ assemblies—has been developed in order to understand the relationships between the federal perceptions and preferences of the Belgian and Canadian citizens. First, this presentation highlights the methodological inspirations that lead to this technique. Then the preliminary results of the data collected in Liège, Montreal and Kingston are presented. Finally avenues for comparisons between the different contexts are proposed in order to further our understanding of federalism in Belgium and Canada.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Repository and Bibliography (University of Liège)French-language works237,207