MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069824841 · doi:10.1080/0037981022000006363

Meeting the Montreal Protocol: Alternative fire suppression systems for archives

2002· article· en· W2069824841 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chris Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society of Archivists · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicConservation Techniques and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal ProtocolProtocol (science)Environmental scienceComputer scienceLibrary scienceHistoryAeronauticsEngineeringMeteorologyGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le service d'archives de Dorset a ete amene a remplacer son systeme de suppression d'incendie afin de satisfaire au Protocole de Montreal concernant l'utilisation des gaz responsables de la diminution de l'ozone. Pour cela trois types de systemes ont ete evalues : les systemes par brume d'eau, les systemes a gaz halocarbone et les systemes a gaz inerte du type Inergen. Dorset a finalement choisi Inergen basse pression.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0100.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.016

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society of ArchivistsSame topicConservation Techniques and StudiesFrench-language works237,207