MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1516973478

Knowledge Management in Defence R&D Canada

2002· article· en· W1516973478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susan McIntyre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Strategy and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessWork (physics)Knowledge managementPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : Defence RD 2. Information management tools are required as essential building blocks in a Defence RD 3. Sharing in-house expertise is critical for knowledge leveraging, business development, cross-disciplinary work and efficiencies; 4. Enhanced exchange of foreign information is required to supplement informal exchanges; and 5. A mutual vision for future technology planning is needed for Defence R&D Canada and the Canadian Forces clients.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.157 · 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
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMilitary Strategy and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207