Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contract Management Principles and Practices was a 4 day webinar held on August 29, 30, 31 and September 1, 2011. There were 5 other participants, 2 others from within Canada and 2 from the USA. Due to the nature of the webinar, my participation was remote from AU Central, Athabasca, Alberta. \n \nThe contents of this seminar was broken into 6 sections; \n•\tIntroduction to Procurement Management \n•\tProject Analysis \n•\tPlan Procurements \n•\tConduct Procurements \n•\tAdminister Procurements \n•\tClose Procurements \n \nContract Management Principles and Practices course work was well managed over the 4 days and informative, the instructor kept the right pace for the flow of the instruction. \n \nThe webinar’s instructor was very knowledge regarding Canadian and US contract laws and regulations. The participating Canadian students also provided Canadian procurement issues and solutions. A classroom environment is preferred over a webinar, when the student has a chance to develop resource contacts for future networking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".