MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Create Your Very Own SOP Story! Communicate Your Attributes, Values and Contributions in a Clear, Concise and Inviting Manner

2014· article· en· W1627508094 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Julie Andrews-Jotham, Margaret Macmillan, Julie Mandal

Bibliographic record

VenuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsBrampton Civic Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasualConversationStatement (logic)PsychologyComputer scienceEpistemologyCommunicationPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Tell me about yourself." When we are asked that question, whether in casual conversation or in a more formal setting such as a job interview, how well do we capture our true selves in our answer? How often do we really think about who we are, what we believe in and how we want to communicate our values, vision and goals to another person in just a few sentences? This article discusses how to create a Statement of Purpose.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.032

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePartnership The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and ResearchSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207