MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098038234

Designed by Andrea Cocks

2004· article· en· W7098038234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational developmentPovertyAgency (philosophy)Citizen journalismDeveloping countryHuman rightsEquity (law)Sustainable development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oxfam Canada is a non-profit, international development organization that works with community groups to help people attain better health and nutrition, more secure incomes and a stronger say in their future as well as responding in emergency situations. Oxfam Canada works in over 20 countries in Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Africa. In Canada, Oxfam educates people on issues of global poverty and advocates for positive changes in policies that directly affect the worlds poor (www.oxfam.ca). Oxfam Canada is one of the 12 Oxfam organizations around the world that form Oxfam International. The Horn of Africa Capacity Building Programme (HOACBP) is a bilateral programme entirely funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and managed by Oxfam Canada and Oxfam Québec, from 1997 to 2002. HOACBP supports groups and organizations that are grounded at the local level, engaged in non-formal education, information and communications, gender equality and justice. It promotes the principles of equity and participatory development through-out the Horn of Africa and supports organizations that espouse and reinforce these principles. Copyright permission to translate and/or reproduce this text in whole or in part is granted by Oxfam Canada, as long as the text is kept in its integrity and the author, Kingo J. Mchombu, and the publisher, Oxfam Canada, are acknowledged. Second edition published in 2004 by Oxfam 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207