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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This book is light hearted and easy to read. Yet it contains a wealth of handy reference information forthe practicing project manager. It should be, considering the large number of contributors from aroundthe world. Further, owners of the book can log into Rita's web site at http://www.rmcproject.com/ andgain access to full sized versions of the many templates and forms displayed in the book, as well asaccess other useful information.The book is also a fun book that might not satisfy the experienced project risk management aficionados.But if that's what it takes to get project risk management better established amongst the general projectmanagement community, then so be it.One final word. In Appendix Four: The PMP® and CAPM® Exams, we learned that the PMP® examis written psychometrically, there are questions on the exam that even experts find difficult!Apparently, psychometrically means with psychological measurements. So at last! This expertwriter has the perfect excuse!R. Max WidemanFellow, PMI
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it