MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Factors in Computer Science, New Technologies, and Scientific Information

2013· book-chapter· en· W2485806432 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAdvances in human and social aspects of technology book series · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsElectronic Arts (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Rhetorical questionComputer scienceData scienceFactor (programming language)Information scienceWork (physics)NeutralityEngineering ethicsManagement scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research work presents a set of rhetorical questions with regard to the new profile that an expert or an editor of scientific information must have regarding computer science and other interactive systems online and offline. The main interrelations between the communicator of the new technologies and those who generate or present themselves as authors of those breakthroughs are also presented, that is, the marketing of sciences. Finally, real examples that show how the economic factor prevails over the neutrality of science are inserted.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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