Consumer representation on consensus standards committees: a value-added practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Representation of consumer interests in standards development is important because of market globalisation and because consumers are the end users of the products and services which are based on these standards. Nevertheless, there is little research on consumer representation. In this study, experienced consumer representatives on standards committees in Canada were interviewed about their training and resource needs. To assist them with their work, the consumer representatives recommended customisation of training to suit their individual needs, greater flexibility in training content and delivery format, and more access to technical resources. Mentoring of novice representatives by those with more experience was believed to be a practice that should be introduced. While it was recognised that these recommendations would be expensive, this additional investment should lead to improved standards for society at large.
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 | 0.179 | 0.224 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".