MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135573076

Citizens on Development of Situation in Afghanistan - September/October 2021

2022· report· cs· W7135573076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Červenka

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature) · 2022
Typereport
Languagecs
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCzechAfghanPublic opinionQuarter (Canadian coin)Public supportForeign policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a survey conducted in September and early October 2021, the Public Opinion Research Centre asked all respondents several questions concerning the development of the situation in Afghanistan in connection with the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces and other allies within the NATO mission from the country. More than a third (36%) of the Czech public were interested in the development of the situation in Afghanistan. Seven out of ten Czech citizens assess the situation in Afghanistan as a threat to world peace, and two thirds perceive it as a threat to European security. About half of the Czech public sees this situation as a threat to the security of the Czech Republic. 45% of Czech citizens consider the decision to withdraw the armed forces and to end the NATO mission in Afghanistan to be the right one, 31% think the opposite. Less than a quarter (24%) consider NATO's mission in Afghanistan to be a success, with about half (51%) finding it a failure. 56% of Czech citizens consider the decision to evacuate Afghan collaborators of Czech mission and their families to the Czech Republic to be the right, and 29% think the opposite.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature)French-language works237,207