[University qualifying work (dissertations), their current registration, electronic access and related technical, administrative and legal questions].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many countries (USA, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Spain, France, SRN) have national or international systems (e.g. Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations--NDLTD), which openly (NDLTD) or commercially (University Microfilm International--UMI) present up to 50% of master dissertations and doctoral theses in a full text form. Such systems are in agreement with legal regulations of the given country and the author is the only holder of the work--of the dissertation. Authors are at the same time informed that dissertation represents a university document, which presents results of the given scientific community and it should be therefore distributed free of charge. Presentation is also the matter of honour of the author and his university. In the contemporary Czech Auctorial Law (No. 121/2000 Sb.) dissertation is considered as not fully defined "Educational work" and from the practical point the duration of necessary storage is not solved. For the contemporary worldwide conversion to electronically presented dissertations, the necessary technical and library standards has been prepared with the first positive experience. The supplement of the Auctorial and University Law appears to be necessary. It is inevitable to be prepared for that situation before the Czech Republic will join EU.
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.093 |
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".