MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051664613 · doi:10.1145/947469.947533

The University of New Brunswick's pilot for an electronic theses and dissertation program

2003· article· en· W2051664613 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceDigital libraryElectronic libraryElectronic publishingPilot programWork (physics)National libraryElectronic journalComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebThe InternetEngineeringMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In November 2002, the University of New Brunswick and UNB's Graduate Student Association (GSA) began an Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) pilot program. An ETD is an electronically published thesis or dissertation. By publishing ETDs on the web, a student's work is easily and quickly accessible to the research community. UNB's pilot was based on information obtained from the National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, discussions with universities participating in ETD programs, and information obtained through published literature. Electronic services offered by the National Library of Canada were reviewed. An on-line editorial office is also being piloted. Both electronic editing of theses by review committee members, as well as electronic transfer and version control are being considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207