MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122564954 · doi:10.5334/2003-1-reuse-12

Commentary by Tom Carey and Kevin Harrigan on Littlejohn, A. (2003) Reusing Online Resources, Chapter 9: Designing for Reuse and Versioning, by Mary Thorpe, Chris Kubiak and Keir Thorpe

2004· article· en· W2122564954 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Carey, Kevin Harrigan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interactive Media in Education · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseRepurposingClass (philosophy)Software versioningComputer scienceContainer (type theory)SociologyCONTESTWorld Wide WebEngineeringPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceSoftwareLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents some elegant ideas about how an individual institution can manage its online content to promote repurposing and re-use. The cases illustrate the benefits and issues involved in making this work. Since the OU process and its instructional approach are already well-managed, the adaptation of the process to allow versioning can be accommodated naturally. Editors: Allison Littlejohn and Simon Buckingham Shum.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interactive Media in EducationSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207