Delphi Studies: The Value of Expert Opinion Bridging the Gap - Data to Knowledge
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports an as yet unfinished Delphi investigation of information management futures. Too often the personal aspect of information provision is overlooked in the light of the dramatic development of technology. However, behind every technological advance there is a provider whose role it is to source, organise and disseminate the information gleaned via that technology. To investigate what is at heart a very subjective situation—an individual’s reaction to a changing work place—the Delphi approach seemed most appropriate. Designed to collect expert opinions as independent, considered views on a commonly debated topic, this method offered structure and validity without a framework too formal to allow for personal, subjective considerations. A Delphi approach provides a unique methodology for studying the trend of future developments. In this particular study it demonstrated a clear perception by senior members of the profession as to the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it