Shake, Rattle, and Roles: Lessons from Experimental Earthquake Engineering for Incorporating Remote Users in Large-Scale E-Science Experiments
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
While there has been substantial interest in using e-science and cyberinfrastructure technologies to enable synchronous remote participation in experimental research, the details of such participation are in question. On the one hand, there is a desire to give remote participants the same views and capabilities that they would have as local participants. On the other hand, there are settings where experimental specimens and apparatus are large and difficult to manipulate effectively or view from a remote vantage point. This article argues for more novel forms of remote participation by drawing on exploratory interview and observation data gathered in civil engineering laboratories. It is shown that, while experiments are in progress, the engineers studied focus primarily on detecting and preventing specimen failures, and that their unease about remote participation stems from doubts about the ability of remote participants to detect failures adequately. It is argued that this presents the opportunity to consider novel roles for remote participants that exploit the features of e-science technologies.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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