MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206944912

Developing and launching effective and engaging videos without breaking the bank

2013· article· en· W2206944912 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Cushon, Gillian Nowlan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)MultimediaSession (web analytics)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebFraming (construction)Engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have leveraged a number of free or cheap resources (and the occasional not-so-cheap resource) to create, distribute, promote, and update videos to promote and educate about library resources and services. These videos can be created by almost anyone with a bit of patience and willingness to learn. This presentation will essentially be a lesson in creating effective videos, quickly and inexpensively. It will focus on practical instructions and demonstrations, with framing information on pedagogy and the legal/moral issues we have encountered. In brief, the lesson cover six steps: 1. Planning the video. 2. Creating and gathering the raw material for the video: digital photos and images, screencaps, videos, links, text-based files, etc. 3. Recording a screencast with voice recording. 4. Editing the screencast and voice recording. 5. Posting and promoting the finished video. 6. Updating videos with new or changed information. Our presentation offers attendees practical ways to create videos that do not require significant monetary investments, while demystifying the creation process for even rudimentary experts. All materials and links, as well as supplmentary information, is available on our session Prezi: http://bit.ly/141eQZo

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1320.053

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207