MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1658543218 · doi:10.22230/src.2012v3n1a50

INKE Administrative Structure: Omnibus Document

2012· article· en· W1658543218 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lynne Siemens

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Public relationsExecutive committeeAdvisory committeePolitical scienceFoundation (evidence)Process (computing)BusinessPublic administrationManagementEngineeringComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document reflects the distributed administrative structure to be put into practice by the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) group for the purpose of governing itself as it carries out work on its Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI)-funded initiative. The INKE group consists of academic researchers, academic research partners (many invested as stakeholders as well), an international advisory board, a partners committee, individual research area groups (RAG) each with their own (co)leads who act as administrators for the group and form the overall RAG administrative group committee, and an executive committee (EC) that represents all areas of activity in the research endeavour and also includes an administrative/ management advisor (who carries out work and provides leadership on process, not research content) and a project manager. Taken as a whole, the structure of the group is an embodiment of the distributed administrative and authoritative principles that have evolved over the several years of the project's foundation, and the materials that follow have been assembled and authored by the entirety of the administrative team in that spirit. This document is also closely aligned with the processes outlined in two related documents: the annual calendar and the annual RAG planning process.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0200.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2020.279

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207