MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108045241 · doi:10.54590/pop.2020.012

How Can We Broaden and Diversify Humanities Knowledge Translation?

2020· article· en· W3108045241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alyssa Arbuckle

Bibliographic record

VenuePop! Public Open Participatory · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseDigital humanitiesWork (physics)SociologyTranslation studiesHumanitiesKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsEpistemologyComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humanities research is extremely relevant for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. But despite the growing corpus of humanities research, there are few explicit translation mechanisms from academic work to broader communities. Building off of such a premise, this paper looks at where knowledge translation is occurring in other fields and what lessons might be learned for the wider and more efficient circulation of humanities work.

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)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.169
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.169
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0080.021
Scholarly communication0.0230.083
Open science0.0060.043
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.016

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.085 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePop! Public Open ParticipatorySame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207