Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Strategy Question: Is there a way to help me follow through on the changes I personally need to make? Summary: You are not doing yourself or your organization a favor by neglecting changes you need to make to be more effective. You know what you really need to work on. If not, your boss, Board or peer group can probably help you. The Ten-Quarter Tool provides a simple method to identify a behavior you want to change, forces you to be aware of it throughout your day, and gives you a method to reinforce repetition. Here is how it works. You determine the behavior you want to improve. You take 10 quarters and put them in your left pocket. Your goal is to do the new behavior 10 times each day. Every time you do it, you move one quarter from your left to your right pocket. At the end of the day your goal is to have all 10 quarters in your right pocket. Kind of simple, right? Yet it works. You jingle a bit when you walk, but the weight of 10 quarters and the noise emanating from your pocket reminds you of the task at hand.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.054 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".