MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098240801

Community Services Council of Newfoundland

2004· article· en· W7098240801 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)InternshipWork (physics)Human servicesTheme (computing)Public sectorCommission
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Community Services Council of Newfoundland and Labrador was delighted to enter into a joint undertaking with Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), Newfoundland Region, to take advantage of the Policy Internships and Fellowships Program (PIAF). The program was designed to enable a federal employee to spend several months with a voluntary, community-based organization. One of the outcomes of the federal Voluntary Sector Initiative, PIAF presented a wonderful opportunity for a government agency and a non-profit organization to work cooperatively on a policy project of mutual interest and import. Our theme focused on a longstanding perception that the further one gets from the centre of Canada the more difficult it is to influence major policy directions. While this perception was much talked about, it was the Community Services Council’s objective to determine if the perception was founded and if so, to what extent. This was an ambitious undertaking which set out to address the level of influence and involvement in the policy- making process of “regions on the periphery”. Traditionally, the regions (both government and the voluntary, community-based sector) have been “consumers and recipients ” of policy. As well, we wanted to explore mechanisms to enable regions on the periphery to be more directly involved in shaping public

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 score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.163 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207