MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044486411 · doi:10.1111/insr.12395

Interview with Professor Adrian FM Smith

2020· article· en· W3044486411 on OpenAlexaff
Πέτρος Δελλαπόρτας, David A. Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Statistical Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicBig Data Technologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryGovernment (linguistics)MajestyConversationManagementState (computer science)Political scienceLibrary scienceLawMedia studiesSociologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Adrian Smith joined The Alan Turing Institute as Institute Director and Chief Executive in September 2018. In May 2020, he was confirmed as President Elect of the Royal Society. He is also a member of the government's AI Council, which helps boost AI growth in the UK and promote its adoption and ethical use in businesses and organisations across the country. Professor Smith's previous role was Vice‐Chancellor of the University of London where he was in post from 2012. He is a past President of the Royal Statistical Society and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2001 in recognition of his contribution to statistics. In 2003‐04 Professor Smith undertook an inquiry into Post‐14 Mathematics Education for the UK Secretary of State for Education and Skills and in 2017, on behalf of Her Majesty's Treasury and the Department for Education, published a 16‐18 Maths Review. In 2006 he completed a report for the UK Home Secretary on the issue of public trust in Crime Statistics. He received a knighthood in the 2011 New Year Honours list. The following conversation took place at the Alan Turing Institute in London, on July 19 2019.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0150.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.017

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 head0.427
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.043 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Statistical ReviewSame topicBig Data Technologies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207