MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7035679172

'Alas poor Hicks', indeed! Sixty years of use and abuse: commentary on Bromwich et al

2010· article· en· W7035679172 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWonderKnightQuarter (Canadian coin)Unconscionability
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alas indeed! We might well wonder whether Professor Ray Chambers would have had the same reservations about using ‘Alas poor Hicks’ to describe what he perceived to be the ‘carelessness and indifference . . . [of] . . . so many . . . who clutched [so] indiscriminately at [Hicks' notion of income]’ had he experienced the matters which Bromwich et al. explain in their ‘Hicksian Income . . .’ in this issue. In a recently discovered 1976 letter to Sir John Hicks (reproduced as an appendix to this comment—and to which there is no evidence in the Chambers Archive of any reply by Hicks) Ray Chambers commented on accountants' cavalier treatment of Hicks on Income, treatment similar to that by the IASB and FASB of which Bromwich et al. now rightly complain.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.228 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNOVA (University of Newcastle Australia)Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical PhysicsFrench-language works237,207