MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7024528884

The Scientist as Facilitator or Adaptive Co-Manager?

2009· article· en· W7024528884 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorCommonsSociology of scientific knowledgePoint (geometry)Key (lock)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Doug Wilson's commentary addresses the crucial problem of building the knowledge commons we need to be able to care for the environment. The example he uses is the fishery, he commons with which he is most familiar. But he could easily have used other commons such as wildlife, forests, or rangelands. In building the argument, he discusses different forms of knowledge, and analyzes the reasons why certain kinds of knowledge sway more power, while making the important point that there are, in fact, many different knowledge cultures (and not just the two kinds, Western scientific vs. informal local knowledge)."

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.008

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University)Same topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207