MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135464179

PET: Keine Daten, die belegen, dass Grenzkontrollen vor Terror schützen:Die Regierung begründet die Kontrollen gegenüber der EU mit einer Analyse des polizeilichen Nachrichtendienstes PET. Doch Zahlen, ob die stichprobenartigen Grenzkontrollen vor Terror schützen, gibt es nicht. EU-Rechtsexpertin Wind: Es muss Evidenz geben, wenn kontrolliert wird.

2022· article· da· W7135464179 on OpenAlexaff
Marlene Wind

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageda
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)IslamophobiaWar on terrorSet (abstract data type)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.013

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.241 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen)Same topicEuropean Criminal Justice and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207