MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987487032 · doi:10.1109/mc.2014.61

Identifying Knowledge Brokers and Their Role in Enterprise Research through Social Media

2014· article· en· W1987487032 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zhe Xu, Jay Ramanathan, Rajiv Ramnath

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSeekersComputer scienceIdentifierFunction (biology)Knowledge managementSocial mediaWorld Wide WebData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information searches based on expert-seeking technology can prove time-consuming or unsuccessful if search terms do not turn up extrinsic identifiers in profiles and saved documents. In many such cases, knowledge brokers function as "humans in the loop," providing intrinsic enterprise knowledge to mediate between information seekers and expert sources-a fact that future collaborative information-seeking system designs should take into account.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0150.026
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputerSame topicMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingFrench-language works237,207