Ten Simple Rules for organizing a non–real-time web conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work describes the 100% virtual ATIDES (Avances en Tecnologı ´as, Innovacio ´n y Desafı ´os de la Educacio ´n Superior) conference that was held between October 15 and 31, 2018, sponsored by Universitat Jaume I (UJI), Spain.Online conferences like this have been the subject of some controversy in the field of education over the last decade.Indeed, we have found a few texts that are against them.One of these is [1], whose authors claim that "interaction is not enough" to ensure efficient simulation of face-to-face contact.However, the Canadian academic community (for instance, the Centre for Distance Education at Athabasca University) is a strong advocate of online conferences (see [2,3]).Among other advantages, this kind of conference is "family-friendly," i.e., they break barriers for researchers with family obligations [4], in particular many women [5].In addition, these conferences overcome the drawback of parallel sessions at face-to-face conferences, at which participants must choose certain talks and miss others.Anderson and Anderson [6] even put forward environmental and economic arguments: "Transportation is a major contributor of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions."On the other hand, Abdullah [7] and Kear, Chetwynd, and Jefferis [8] look at the matter from another point of view that is also important: Social presence at online conferences.Gichora and colleagues [9] propose 10 rules for organizing a virtual conference, but they only focus on real-time virtual conferences.Real-time virtual conferences emulate the structure of well-known on-site conferences, with the use of video-conferencing tools for connecting the participants in a virtual meeting.We, on the other hand, focus on non-real-time web conferences.In this kind of conference, a web platform connects the participants, but the event does not take place live.Communication can be made through posts on a forum, which can sometimes take hours or even days.Non-real-time web conferences share many of the advantages of real-time virtual conferences, such as being family friendly and allowing the involvement of participants with a low budget for traveling, which makes this kind of conference more participative and inclusive.However, non-real-time web conferences have other advantages that real-time web conferences do not.Asynchronous interaction allows the attendees to have more time for reflection before they put forward their questions and comments, and, likewise, the speaker has enough time to prepare an appropriate answer.This makes up for the lack of face-to-face social interaction in this type of conference.In fact, numerous interactions occur via forums and are, in many cases, numerous and more informal and flexible than at classical scientific meetings [10].Forums give rise to stimulating discussions like those that can occur at unconferences [11].Furthermore, this asynchrony allows participants from all over the world to take part without worrying about time zone differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".