MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978311053 · doi:10.1177/1075547005275988

Reporting the Future—Journalism Meets Emerging Science

2005· article· en· W1978311053 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Communication · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellencePolitical scienceJournalismScience communicationAssociation (psychology)Public relationsLibrary scienceMedia studiesSociologyScience educationPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 4th World Conference of Science Journalists that was held in Montreal in October 2004 was a major success, with more than 600 participants from nearly sixty countries. Jointly organized by the national Canadian Science Writers’ Association and the Association des Communicateurs Scientifiques du Québec, the meeting featured thirty-two sessions and more than 100 speakers. With thirty presidents of regional, national, and international science writer associations present, the meeting provided the venue for the formal launch of the World Federation of Science Journalists, the goals of which include promoting excellence in science and technology reporting.

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.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.375 · 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