MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901421865 · doi:10.15173/jpc.v5i2.3745

Data science and communications management

2018· article· en· W2901421865 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alex Sévigny

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Professional Communication · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Professional communicationComputer scienceEngineering ethicsData scienceVolume (thermodynamics)Scholarly communicationTechnical communicationWorld Wide WebEngineeringPolitical sciencePublishingElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this editorial for issue two of volume five of the Journal of ProfessionalCommunication, the author discusses how data science is changingthe communications landscape. He suggests that advances intechnology are making it easier to learn about and communicate withpublics. The author challenges communciations professionals to makebetter use of this new technology in their own work.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0180.014
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.012

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.188 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Professional CommunicationSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207