MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Product Developments and Dissemination Activities

2012· report· en· W368515473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miguel Amado, Klaudia Farkas, Francesco Frontini, Alessia Giovanardi, Susanne Gosztonyi, Caroline Hachem-Vermette, Merete Hoff, Margarethe Korolkow, Marja Lundgren, Laura Maturi, María Cristina, Munari Probst, C. Roecker, Alessandra Scognamiglio, Mark Snow

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Design and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceData scienceBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document shows product developments and dissemination activities carried out within the framework of, or in close relation to, the project IEA SHC Task 41; Solar Energy and Architecture. This Task gathered researchers and practicing architects from 14 countries in the three year project whose aim was to identify the obstacles architects are facing when incorporating solar design in their projects, to provide resources for overcoming these barriers and to help improving architects’ communication with other stakeholders in the design of solar buildings. Participating countries were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. The report gives not a complete list of activities, but shows the different types of activities to spread the findings in Task 41 and to initiate product developments in participating countries.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0960.090

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft Design and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207