Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Iosif Romanyuk wrote to me to let me know that the “Magnetic Stars — 2010” meeting was being organised at the Special Astrophysical Observatory, I wondered — as I always do — whether I should go to the meeting. Obtaining a Russian visa requires a lot of advance planning, and I always seem to have to send my passport off for the actual visa just when I need the passport for another trip. Furthermore, the actual trip to SAO is really long and strenuous. There is about 18 or 20 hours of travel from Ontario to Moscow, through my very least favourite airport (Frankfurt), a short overnight stay in Moscow (with long trips to and from the airports), and then the flight to Mineralnye Vody and the bus trip to the Observatory the next day. The two-day return trip, typically requiring a flight that leaves one of the Moscow airports before 6 a. m., can be even more tiring. But, as I always have since I first came to a “Magnetic Stars” meeting at SAO in 1999, I decided that of course I would attend. These meetings are simply too valuable (and too enjoyable) to miss. Why do I always decide to come? The size of the meeting, roughly 50 participants, is ideal for intense interaction. It makes possible a relaxed workshop environment, with enough time for each lecture for the speaker to explain his or her work in some detail. And there is time to discuss the talks with the speakers and look at the posters. Even more importantly, the talks present a lot of really interesting new science and important results. In my field, this is certainly one of the most important occasions to meet with other people who share a lot of interests and discuss new work. This meeting is an excellent occasion to get to know Russian, Ukrainian, and Eastern European colleagues better. When we meet at larger meetings such as the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union, there are usually so many people present that there is little time to spend with any one in person. In contrast, at a small meeting like this one, there is plenty of opportunity to talk with colleagues I don’t yet know well, and to discuss ongoing projects with collaborators such as Tanya Ryabchikova. One aspect of the meeting that I appreciate very much is the large number of very fine talks presented by young astronomers. It is really encouraging to see bright young people moving into the fields covered by the SAO “Magnetic Stars” meetings, and to hear about their ideas and projects. And of course one of the most important reasons for coming is the opportunity to spend time talking with the members of the SAO “Magnetic Mafia”, founded by Yurii Glagolevskij and now ably led by Iosif Romanyuk with assistance from Dmitry Kudryavtsev.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.251 | 0.172 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".