Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of joint evaluation involving several actors is criss-crossed by a process of negotiation and adjustment between different concerns, responsibilities and interests. How can we encourage a dialogue between knowledge from expertise and knowledge from experience, in order to produce knowledge that is scientifically based and useful for those who are involved in the programs? Far from being a mechanical process, this involves the delicate task of striking a balance, which relies on a negotiated partnership framework. The implementation of an advisory committee, organized by an interface function between the stakeholders of the intervention under study, has increasingly become recognized as a necessary condition for success in partnership-based research. These conditions enable the deployment of a reflexive system that can support social innovation--when the formulation of the problem and its resulting actions become enriched, as knowledge about the intervention develops.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.050 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".