MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197887234 · doi:10.3233/isu-210112

KBART Phase III: Unresolved questions

2021· article· en· W3197887234 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Services & Use · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information Systems
Canadian institutionsCanadian Respiratory Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Presentation (obstetrics)BreakoutLibrary scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Operations researchSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEngineeringBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the “NISO update” session at the NISO Plus 2021 conference, which took place online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the KBART (Knowledge Base and Related Tools) Standing Committee presented their plans and work toward KBART Phase III, a revision of the KBART Recommended Practice. In an interactive breakout session, they sought input from attendees on how KBART is being used and what new content types it should support. Presenters from the KBART Standing Committee were Noah Levin (Independent Professional), Stephanie Doellinger (OCLC, Inc.), Robert Heaton (Utah State University), and Andrée Rathemacher (University of Rhode Island). Assisting them in preparing the presentation were Jason Friedman (Canadian Research Knowledge Network), Sheri Meares (EBSCO Information Services), Benjamin Johnson (ProQuest), Elif Eryilmaz-Sigwarth (Springer Nature), and Nettie Lagace (NISO).

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.070
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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