MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7051795617

Op basis van de Nationale Enquête Arbeidsomstandigheden schatten we het percentage flexibele werknemers in 2009 op circa 20%:

2011· book-chapter· nl· W7051795617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languagenl
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Table (database)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hoe groot de ideale flexibele schil is, moet iedere organisatie zelf bepalen. Je kijkt aan de ene kant naar de flexibiliteitbehoefte: hoe zien de pieken en dalen er op de korte en lange termijn uit en welke variatie aan producten en diensten wordt gevraagd. Aan de andere kant kijk je naar de mix aan maatregelen die je kunt treffen. Denk aan de brede inzetbaarheid van het eigen personeel, aan flexibele werktijden en roosters. Daarboven kies je voor welk deel je flexkrachten wilt inzetten.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.027

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207