MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ThinkTeam

2008· book-chapter· en· W2488637140 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)Human–computer interactionKnowledge managementEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People make decisions all the time. They make decisions alone; they make decisions together with others. Some fields have been focusing on the process of decision making and have attempted to help people make decisions. Psychologists, trainers, and organizational development consultants are aiming to develop decision- making theories and methodologies and train people to use them in business, economics, urban-planning, and more areas of management and personal life. Computer-based decision support systems emerge in various fields. These fields are mainly interested in the actual process: helping people make better decisions. This article is about an indirect use of decision-making methodology: we use it as a learning task. As technology can process large quantities of integrated information while presenting results in a visualize manner, technology was harnessed to aid decision makers in various ways. Decision support systems (DSS) have been used to present decision makers with all possible relevant knowledge so they can take into account as many variables as they can before making an informed decision.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.222 · 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