MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106338164 · doi:10.25940/roper-31120912

Social Weather Stations Survey: 2015 Second Quarter

2015· other· W7106338164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRoper Center for Public Opinion Research iPOLL · 2015
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsGovernment (linguistics)PovertyAdministration (probate law)Quarter (Canadian coin)Austerity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Household facilities (1); labor force status (1); job search (4); ability & willingness to start a job (2); occupation information (3); working hours (4); jobs abroad (4); relatives abroad (2); household composition (2); self-rated poverty (6); food poverty (4); hunger (2); transportation expenses (1); past spending participation (6); future spending participation (6); media access (6); internet use (2); economic trend indicators (2); optimism/pessimism (2); news events (14), P-Noy (1); after P-Noy (1); noting preferences in 2016 election (13); President Benigno Aquino lll (5); leadership (1); political families (1); awareness/ratings of government officials (18); Cynthia Villar (2); awareness/performance of government institutions (10); performance of the national administration (20); Bangsamoro basic law (6); peace process with the government and MILF (4); dealing with armed groups (2); views on Muslims (3); communist rebels (3); budget management (6); grassroots budgeting (3); Janet Lim Napoles Case (3); former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2); awareness and trust in selected personalities (11); awareness and trust in institutions (4); international relations (7); Police (5); crime victimization (15); Maguindanao Massacre (3); agree/disagree statements (10); morale indicators (3).

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)0.002
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.012

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 head0.301
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.164 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoper Center for Public Opinion Research iPOLLFrench-language works237,207