MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028927683

Heeft het Randstad-concept nog enig nut?

2021· report· nl· W7028927683 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Repository (Delft University of Technology) · 2021
Typereport
Languagenl
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Health Sciences Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Cuneiform
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Column - Werkend aan de afronding van een reader over de Randstad, samen met Vincent Nadin, kwam als vanzelf de vraag op of het Randstad concept vandaag de dag nog enig nut heeft? Bij buitenlandse collega’s is de Randstad behoorlijk bekend, deelsdoor achtereenvolgende edities van The World Cities van Peter Hall en het werk van Andreas Faludi over de Nederlandse planning doctrine. De OECD droeg ook aan deze bekendheid bij door een tijdlang in studies data op Randstad niveau te presenteren. Steden als Rotterdam en Amsterdam, verscholen achter het label Randstad, konden opeens serieus de vergelijking doorstaan met echte wereldsteden als Londen of Parijs. Hier in Nederland, bij veel binnenlandse collega’s en in het Rijksbeleid, is Randstad inmiddels louter een plaatsnaam geworden. Het label world city, gemoderniseerd als metropool, zou enkel op Amsterdam van toepassing zijn. Althans, dat beweren sommige, in deze vestzak metropool loslopende planologen.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.296 · 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