MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062027404 · doi:10.4018/ijepr.2015010104

Blogging the City

2015· article· en· W2062027404 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of E-Planning Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipRelevance (law)Value (mathematics)SociologyPublic relationsDigital scholarshipScholarly communicationAcademic communitySocial mediaSocial sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Academic blogging has typically been a form of digital scholarship that is under-utilized in academia. Although there are both costs and benefits to blogging at different stages in an academic's career, blogs can provide a rewarding platform for bringing research and academic perspectives to a wide-reaching and broader audience. This note explores the different experiences of each of the co-authors in terms of using blogs for their scholarly communication. The experiences and lessons gained are of particular relevance to urban planners, sociologists, and anthropologists, who study the social, economic, and historical elements of the city. The findings suggest that the motivations and approaches of scholarly blogging are diverse but overall add value to the academic community. Moreover, each testimony in this note provides examples of the benefits of blogging for research, collaboration, and engagement.

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)0.003
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 score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.176 · 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