MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992081418 · doi:10.5737/1181912x113118122

Weaving for the future: Using rulers and roses

2001· article· en· W1992081418 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Betty Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Leadership and Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeavingPreconditionCreativityTheme (computing)Focus (optics)Reading (process)AestheticsSociologyVisual artsComputer scienceEngineeringArtPolitical scienceLawWorld Wide WebMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When I was invited to give this keynote address, I was asked to focus on the theme of the conference - Weaving tapestries for the future - and more specifically on the concepts of unity, creativity, and vision. I have been reading a lot of leadership literature lately where vision is looked upon as a necessary precondition for success. It is also a precondition for unity and creativity. And so, I will focus on the concept of vision.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0210.022
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicOrganizational Leadership and Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207