MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154878857 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/vj5tu

Centering inclusivity in the design of online conferences - An OHBM - Open Science perspective

2021· preprint· en· W3154878857 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConferences and Exhibitions Management
Canadian institutionsMontfort HospitalMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalPolytechnique MontréalConcordia UniversityMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthMedical Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational Institutes of HealthVlaamse regeringMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Science FoundationUniversity of QueenslandEuropean CommissionAXA Research FundKing's College LondonNational Imaging FacilityNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchElsass FondenDipartimenti di EccellenzaBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of SydneyNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesWellcome TrustNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and DepressionBrain and Behavior Research Foundation
KeywordsPublic relationsOnline communityPolitical scienceSocial mediaPerspective (graphical)SociologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the global health crisis unfolded throughout the world, many academic conferences moved online in 2020. This move has been hailed as a positive step towards inclusivity in its attenuation of economic, physical and legal barriers and effectively enabled many individuals who have traditionally been underrepresented to join and participate. A number of studies have outlined how moving online made it possible to gather a more global community and has increased opportunities for individuals with various constraints, e.g. caregiving responsibilities. Yet, the mere existence of online conferences is unfortunately no guarantee that everyone can attend and participate meaningfully. In fact, many elements of an online conference are still significant barriers to truly diverse participation: the tools used can be inaccessible for some individuals; the scheduling choices can favour some geographical locations; the setup of the conference can provide more visibility to well-established researchers and reduce opportunities for early career researchers. While acknowledging the benefits of an online setting, especially for individuals who have traditionally been underrepresented or excluded, we recognize that fostering social justice requires inclusivity to actively be centered in every aspect of online conference design.Here, we draw from the literature and from our own experiences to identify practices that purposefully encourage a diverse community to: attend, participate in, and lead online conferences. Reflecting on how to design more inclusive online events is especially important as multiple scientific organizations have announced that they will continue offering an online version of their event when in-person conferences can resume.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.263 · 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