Electronic thesis initiative: pilot project of McGill University, Montreal
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To set up a protocol for electronic thesis and dissertation (ETD) submission for the electronic thesis initiative pilot project at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Design/methodology/approach An electronic thesis and dissertation submission protocol was implemented and tested. To test authoring tools, we had 50 students submit their theses or dissertations using one of four style sheets. Word‐processed files were converted to PDF and XML formats. The pilot project team evaluated DigiTool's effectiveness in digital conversion, capture of metadata and cataloguing, digital content harvesting, digital preservation, and integration with the student information system. Findings All theses experienced some degree of information loss during the conversion. DigiTool is still being tested for storage, cataloguing, and dissemination capability. For full implementation, three major issues need to be addressed further: conversion; metadata; and file formats. Practical implications Most of the issues that have arisen during the McGill pilot project will be mirrored at other academic institutions that are considering electronic thesis submission. Originality/value This paper provides insights into the procedures that will arise as institutions go through the process of introducing electronic thesis and dissertation submission.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.144 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it