Virtual Growing Pains: Initial Lessons Learned from Organizing Virtual Workshops, Summits, Conferences, and Networking Events during a Global Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For many, 2020 was a year of abrupt professional and personal change. For the aquatic sciences community, many were adapting to virtual formats for conducting and sharing science, while simultaneously learning to live in a socially distanced world. Understandably, the aquatic sciences community postponed or canceled most in‐person scientific meetings. Still, many scientific communities either transitioned annual meetings to a virtual format or inaugurated new virtual meetings. Fortunately, increased use of video conferencing platforms, networking and communication applications, and a general comfort with conducting science virtually helped bring the in‐person meeting experience to scientists worldwide. Yet, the transition to conducting science virtually revealed new barriers to participation whereas others were lowered. The combined lessons learned from organizing a meeting constitute a necessary knowledge base that will prove useful, as virtual conferences are likely to continue in some form. To concentrate and synthesize these experiences, we showcase how six scientific societies and communities planned, organized, and conducted virtual meetings in 2020. With this consolidated information in hand, we look forward to a future, where scientific meetings embrace a virtual component, so to as help make science more inclusive and global.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".