MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588715982 · doi:10.29173/cais710

Going Out on a LIM: The Practices of Lay Information Mediaries

2014· article· fr· W2588715982 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nicole Dalmer, Tami Oliphant

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativePsychologyHumanitiesGerontologyMedicineArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lay information mediaries (LIMs) are individuals who search on behalf or because of others. LIM practices are often guided by the LIMs’ narrative regarding the individual or muse who inspired the search. How narratives influence LIMs as they provide informal caregiving to older adults and people with depression are analyzed.Les médiateurs d'information non spécialisée sont des personnes qui cherchent pour les autres ou à cause des autres. Cette pratique est souvent guidée par la vision qu'a le médiateur de la personne ou de la muse qui inspire la recherche. On analyse comment le discours narratif de ces médiateurs influe sur les soins qu'ils donnent à des adultes âgés et à des personnes souffrant de dépression.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.019
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSISame topicData Analysis and ArchivingFrench-language works237,207