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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.014 |
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".