MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972850736 · doi:10.1145/1056808.1056864

Interaction at Lincoln laboratory in the 1960's

2005· article· en· W1972850736 on OpenAlexaff
William Buxton, Ron Baecker, Wesley A. Clark, F. H. Richardson, Ivan E. Sutherland, William R. Sutherland, Austin Henderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Foundation (evidence)Work (physics)Key (lock)Computer scienceLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebEngineeringHistoryPolitical scienceArchaeologyComputer securityLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The activity centered around the TX-2 computer at Lincoln Laboratory in the 1960's laid the foundation for much of HCI. Through the use of archival film footage, and live presentations by some of the key protagonists, this panel is intended to contribute to a more general awareness of this work, its historical importance to HCI, and its relevance to research today.

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)0.005
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.016

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations59
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207