MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3109811716 · doi:10.1002/sdr.1667

Moving online: reflections from conducting system dynamics workshops in virtual settings

2020· article· en· W3109811716 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nici Zimmermann, Irene Pluchinotta, Giuseppe Salvia, Marianne F. Touchie, Helen Stopps, Ian Hamilton, Ted Kesik, Kaveh Dianati, Ting Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueSystem Dynamics Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of TorontoWellcome TrustSight Research UKUniversity College London
KeywordsDynamics (music)Computer scienceSystem dynamicsSimulationArtificial intelligencePhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, it has become increasingly important and necessary to conduct research and teaching activities online. While many universities quickly started the transition to online teaching, most in‐person research activities were typically postponed. However, in order to not significantly delay research, researchers are increasingly seeking to conduct activities, such as workshops, in a virtual setting. Following this initial period of disruption, it is expected that many online or hybrid activities will continue to be used and, in some cases, may replace in‐person interactions due to cost, time, convenience, and environmental concerns after the COVID‐19 crisis has passed. Researchers and/or stakeholders are often geographically dispersed, which independently motivates the use of online or hybrid workshop activities.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.020
Scholarly communication0.0180.016
Open science0.0070.019
Research integrity0.0080.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystem Dynamics Review→Same topicComplex Systems and Decision Making→French-language works237,207→