MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1710150156 · doi:10.1002/bult.2014.1720400205

Special section: Information policy

2014· article· en· W1710150156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brandi Loveday

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElement (criminal law)Section (typography)Government (linguistics)Political sciencePublic relationsKey (lock)Privacy policyAccess to informationInformation privacyInformation policyAssociation (psychology)Public administrationInternet privacyInformation accessLibrary scienceBusinessLawPsychologyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract EDITOR'S SUMMARY The ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Information Policy (SIG/IFP) provides a forum for members to express their views and concerns about a key element of the association's purpose, “to promote informed policy on national and international information issues.” Supporting that purpose, contributors explore Fifth Amendment protections, mobile data privacy, governmental use of cookies, self‐destructing data, access to government information in Canada and how privacy has fared since the events of September 11, 2001. There are daily changes in information policy, often little noticed despite their significant consequences. Yet despite careers dedicated to research on information and its implications, those in the information science domain have remarkably little presence in discussions. ASIS&T members are urged to become knowledgeable about information policy, engage in debate and become involved, living up to the association's stated 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionFrench-language works237,207