Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Quality’ is an evolving concept, quite difficult to be defined, whatever the application domain observed. As Tom Demarco said, it’s true that “you cannot control what you cannot measure”. But coming back, it’s also true that “you cannot measure what you cannot define” and again “you cannot define what you don’t know”. Thus, moving from a common, shared definition is the priority for any activity and creates also measures from any measurement and benchmarking activity. Along the years, several ‘quality models’ (QM) have been produced: the scope for non-functional attributes (part of the ‘quality’ definition, also according to ISO) is enlarging. This paper discusses the evolution of the quality concept (broader than the one referred to the solely ‘product’) in order to observe which perspectives can be drawn up for the next years.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".