MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123276999 · doi:10.1145/1940761.1940841

Multi-lifespan information system design

2011· article· en· W2123276999 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa P. Nathan, Milli Lake, Nell Carden Grey, Trond Nilsen, Robert F. Utter, Elizabeth J. Utter, Mark Ring, Zoe Kahn, Batya Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 2011 iConference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGrassrootsTribunalWork (physics)Set (abstract data type)Field (mathematics)Computer scienceReuseInformation systemPublic relationsSociologyKnowledge managementData sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we report on our research and design efforts to provide Rwandans with access to and reuse of video interviews discussing the failures and successes of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (UN-ICTR). We describe our general approach and report on three case studies with diverse sectors of Rwandan society: governmental information centres, youth clubs, and a grassroots organization working with victims of sexual violence. Our work includes the development and application of five indicators to assess the success and limitations of our approach: diverse stakeholders; diverse uses; on-going use; cultural, linguistic and geographic reach; and Rwandan initiative. This work makes three important contributions: first, it offers the information field a design approach for use in post-conflict situations; second, it provides near-term evaluation indicators as an initial set others can build from and extend; third, it describes the first empirical explorations of the multi-lifespan information system design research approach.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 2011 iConferenceSame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207