MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042181058 · doi:10.1109/iri.2007.4296583

Panel: Industry Relationship Development

2007· article· en· W2042181058 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart H. Rubin, Shu‐Ching Chen, Gisela Susanne Bahr, W.A. Gruver, Robert C. Hockett, Michael Jiang, Gordon K. Lee, Michael Leyton, June R. Massoud, Mariofanna Milanova, Antony Satyadas, Michael Smith, Daniel Yeung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanel discussionCorporationDatabase transactionSolvencyGovernment (linguistics)Agency (philosophy)BusinessAccreditationQuality (philosophy)ManagementAccountingPublic relationsMarketingPolitical scienceFinanceEconomicsComputer scienceSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the industrial panel is summarily stated as follows. This panel serves the goal of finding ways to increase industrial participation in the SMC Transaction journals. Only through industrial collaboration can the SMC society maintain financial solvency and an influx of industrial and academic minds into its constituent fields. It is our hope that the industrial panel will provide vision and direction with these ends in mind. Invitees to the panel currently serve or have served as a CEO, president, vice-president, or other ranking executive of a corporation or federal agency that has a vested interest in transitioning research; or, as a dean (any subrank), provost, president, or grant agent of an accredited North American Research University that has experience in marketing patents, or other research products such as software, etc. Several distinguished university professors have also be invited. They have special insight into technology transition, and have a track record of bringing in funding, as appropriate, publication (not necessarily extensive, which helps us to bolster our IEEE Transaction journals as one of the subjects of our planned deliberations). The panel will address, as its primary focus, how to increase the market share of our IEEE SMC Transactions (especially Part C), while maintaining or improving their quality, maintaining or improving their financial solvency, and publishing research that industry and government need done and can share in an open forum.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0120.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2580.112

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207