Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the history of ICF 1969–2017 and the challenges ahead for a new era of ICF 2017–2029. In 1969 ICF was established in Brighton, UK with a governing constitution via the Statutes & Bye-Laws. These Statutes & Bye-Laws are indeed an evolving, living document with progressive revisions followed over the decades since 1969. Many evolutions in developing our now mature ICF culture and modus operandi have occurred over the years. There will be others in the challenging era ahead 2017–2029 via ICF14, ICF15, ICF16 & ICF17 but we might highlight: (1) The Gold & Silver Medals introduced in 2009 at ICF12 as an important extra-statutory evolution of ICF for the benefit of our global brand via AwardCo; (2) The Honour Lectures introduced in 1977 at ICF4 via Ashby/Bilby and followed to the highest standard therefrom; (3) The MoU System to assure the autonomy and independent organization of our quadrennials in the context of the ICF Culture introduced at ICF12 via the Canadian Government and developed for ICF13, ICF14 & ICF15; (4) The Quadrennials Regional Rotation guideline introduced at ICF6 in 1984 to ensure wide global participation; (5) The Interquadrennials Programme initiated in 1983 in Beijing after ICF5 and continued very actively since ICF12 with various ICF regions; (6) The Enlarged Portfolio-Based ExCo introduced at ICF13 for wider representation and “New Blood”; (7) The Enhanced Accreditation of voting Council members to be introduced at ICF14 via NomCo; (8) The Multi-Stranding of the original ICF micro/macro brand from ICF4 and progressively at each quadrennial including geo-physics, biomedical, bio-engineering, non-metallics, computational mechanics, adhesion, nano-scales, sustainabilty, energy, education, politics/society, safer engineering, risk & disaster analysis; (9) The ICF Website and accessibility to all our Proceedings introduced via IGF after ICF12; (10) The Regional Groups in the Far-East, Iberia/Latin America, Africa, India, Australasia, Europe, Canada, Egypt and variously from 1976 onwards originally via Dominique in Compiegne, France and EGF; (11) The Chief Executive-Treasurer role in structured leadership since ICF6; (12) The ICF Culture of friendly, human, transparent, democratic, harmony-oriented – respecting past contributions of “heavy-lifters” via emeritus standing and FICF election – towards Safer, Sustainable Technology for the common good.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".