MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235091725

Choosing Thesis Juries: The Costs of Taking a Strict Line on Conflicts of Interest

2012· article· en· W2235091725 on OpenAlexaff
Bryn Williams–Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuePapyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurySelection (genetic algorithm)Political scienceLine (geometry)LawOperations researchHumanitiesComputer sciencePhilosophyEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude de cas examine les conflits d'intérêts (CI) qui peuvent survenir lors de la sélection des membres du jury pour évaluer une thèse de doctorat et les coûts (temps, personnel, expertise) associés aux tentatives d'éviter les CI.This case study examines the conflicts of interest (COI) that can arise in the selection of jury members to evaluate a PhD thesis, and the costs (time, personnel, expertise) associated with trying to avoid COI.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.216
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.216
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal)Same topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207