MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057189169 · doi:10.15173/jpc.v3i1.144

How to get “real Italian pizza”

2013· article· en· W2057189169 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Professional Communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicMarketing and Advertising Strategies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstructiveContext (archaeology)The InternetField (mathematics)SociologyPublic relationsMedia studiesBest practiceBusiness modelLaw and economicsManagementWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePolitical scienceMarketingLawBusinessHistoryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following critical book review discusses the insights by Jeff Jarvis in What Would Google Do and Chris Anderson in The Long Tail. Each author provides stimulating discourse on the revolution of the internet and its benefits to the success of business practices today. Jarvis highlights the ingenious tactics practiced by Google and the necessity of implanting them into other industries and fields. Anderson introduces a framework that changes the way businesses choose to market their products and services. Although not recently published, these two bestsellers are classics in their field and present a case to be considered. They are appraised in a constructive and humorous context, leading the reader to the nearest outlet to obtain the reads and see for themselves! Above all, this review will reveal the secret to acquiring the best Real Italian Pizza. ©Journal of Professional Communication, all rights reserved.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.251 · 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