MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2216672895 · doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2015.12.004

Workshop Synthesis: Improving Methods to Collect Data on Dynamic Behavior and Processes

2015· article· en· W2216672895 on OpenAlex
Regine Gerike, Martin Lee-Gosselin

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation research procedia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Strengths and weaknessesComputer scienceProcess (computing)Identification (biology)Data scienceManagement scienceData collectionProcess managementEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper summarizes the findings from the workshop “Improving methods to collect data on dynamic behavior and processes”. This workshop focused on the scope, strengths and weaknesses of traditional and innovative survey methods used to capture dynamics in travel behaviour and on the identification of future research priorities. This paper gives an overview of the process followed by the workshop, presents the definitions of technical terms adopted to facilitate the spoken exchanges in the workshop, describes the current state of research on topics that were selected for discussion by the participants, and looks ahead to future research

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.264
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.260 · 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