MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1805439553 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.67

Evaluating Vendor Supplied Information

2002· article· en· W1805439553 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Patrick J. Fahy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVendorComputer scienceDistance educationMultimediaWorld Wide WebData scienceBusinessMathematics educationMarketingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distance educators are not normally equipped by their training or experience for the complex task of evaluating technologies.One of the areas of potential disadvantage is in interpreting information provided by vendors themselves, and in relating effectively with sales, marketing and technical representatives.An objective and thorough product evaluation requires that information be selected, and sometimes generated, to aid the process.Vendors may agree to provide additional information, including direct experience with their products, if evaluators know what to ask for and what to expect from vendors.This series of software evaluation reports will continue with reviews of other online collaborative tools.N.B.Owing to the speed with which Web addresses are changed, the online references cited in this report may be outdated.They can be checked at the Athabasca University software evaluation site: cde.athabascau.ca/softeval/.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.271
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.271
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.012

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 head0.316
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.162 · 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
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207