MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962827351 · doi:10.22148/16.042

TED Talks as Data

2019· article· en· W2962827351 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katherine M. Kinnaird, John Laudun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Analytics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Tools and Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)CurrencyInclusion (mineral)Political scienceTelecommunicationsHistoryComputer scienceSociologyGender studiesLinguisticsPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decade, TED talks have achieved a high level of cultural currency. In addition to the original event, which continues, the various spinoff events, e.g. TEDMed or TEDGlobal, and the localized versions (TEDx), there is a TED radio hour on National Public Radio as well as a considerable infrastructure de- signed to formalize the inclusion of TED talks in education.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1380.127

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cultural AnalyticsSame topicEducational Tools and MethodsFrench-language works237,207