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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract – Many design courses require students to maintain a paper-based personal design notebook or journal. The potential advantages of a digital notebook have been described in the literature, but few reports can be found on the use of digital notebooks in practice. This paper describes the design and implementation of a cloud-based collaborative workspace to provide a shared team design notebook. The shared workspace uses Microsoft SharePoint sites and Microsoft OneNote notebooks as the main components. SharePoint sites were created for 34 design teams in a 2nd-year engineering design course. Each site had a team notebook, document library, discussion forum, and task scheduler. Instructions and training were provided at the beginning of the course. Students were able to use the tools with little difficulty, and were able to use them as an effective replacement for a paper notebook. However, many teams did not make full use of the available capabilities, and there was little evidence of higher-level collaborative activities. The described implementation is technically and financially feasible, is scalable to large classes, and satisfies most of the requirements of a collaborative design notebook. However, scaffolding and training are needed to ensure that students collaborate effectively.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it