Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mar. 17, 2004 12 pgs Coverage of the upcoming GCSU elections; legal action taken between GCSU and Pro-Tem; advice for first years trying pick courses. Contributers: Loic Lahournat, Ted Xiao Guo, Kristin Foster, Melissa Fockler, Nathalie Bock, Jacqui Simon, Julie Ellis, Cathia Badiere, Ashley Beaulac, Tim Gunderson Editor-in-Chief: Chris Spraakman Assistant Editor: Julie Marion Sage Layout/Design: Jadzia Karas, Chris Spraakman Cover Design: Jadzia Karas Article titles: Forward to freedom! We asked you What is autonomy? Dear Editor: The trials and tribulations of an autonomous newspaper GCSU disadvantaged as Pro-Tem separates Legal action sought by GCSU A year at the GCSU: an inside perspective Candidates make their voices heard during election speeches Les candidates pour l'election Quel nouveau modele quebecois? Take control of your own degree Glendon radio: the same old feel with a new look Ask Reggie Les rendez-vous de la francophonie 2004
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".