MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W30538414 · doi:10.1891/1058-1243.25.3.174

Competitive Open Source

2007· article· en· W30538414 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œopen source business resource · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen sourceComputer scienceOperating systemSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eighteen identified motivations for attending a birth doula training workshop were ranked by 467 participants (466 females, 1 male) in 2010 and 2013. Participants selected a variety of reasons but only 30% chose to "become a professional doula" as their main reason. Another 20% wanted to "become a midwife." Remaining participants selected 16 other professional and personal motivations, such as "increase birth knowledge," "understand my own births," "make future births better," and "help women have better births (not as a professional)." One quarter had not attended a birth or had a child. Besides career training, these workshops are filling a cultural gap in childbirth education for people who are not expectant parents, and who intend to use this knowledge in unanticipated ways.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0220.016
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.260 · 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