MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W812138894

EDUCATION Definitions for the Parameters of Georgia's Hope Scholarship: Amend Certain Definitions Relating to HOPE Scholarships and Grants; Limit the Number of Quarter or Semester Hours for Which HOPE Scholarships May Be Received at Public and Private Postsecondary Institutions; Provide for Students in Professional Level Programs; Provide for Related Matters; Repeal Conflicting Laws; and for Other Purposes

2005· article· en· W812138894 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher J. Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeorgia State University law review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipQuarter (Canadian coin)Limit (mathematics)Political scienceSociologyLawHistoryMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bill would have changed definitions associated with implementation of Georgia's HOPE scholarship program. Specifically, it would have limited to 127 the number of semester hours for which a student in Georgia's postsecondary institutions may receive HOPE scholarship funding. If enacted, the bill would have applied to all postsecondary educational programs at private and public schools that grant baccalaureate degrees. The bill would also have eliminated differentiation among program titles such as associate and baccalaureate when considering eligibility for HOPE scholarship funding. The bill's provisions would not have taken effect until the 2005 fall semester. Prior statutory definitions would have continued to govern eligibility for HOPE scholarship funding.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0120.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeorgia State University law reviewSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207