MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205450611 · doi:10.4324/9781003096566-15

Overcoming barriers

2021· book-chapter· en· W4205450611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kyle Wiebe, Beth Timmers, Stefan Jungcurt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2009, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), in partnership with the United Way Winnipeg (UWW) in Manitoba, Canada, has been managing Peg, an online community indicator system (CIS) that tracks the well-being of Winnipeggers. While Peg’s first online platform was technologically advanced for its time, the original site became increasingly burdensome and costly to manage as it aged. In 2018, the IISD undertook an overhaul of the platform used to run Peg. As the IISD embarked on developing a new platform for Peg, it became apparent that many other communities and governments were facing similar difficulties collecting, managing, and communicating their data online as it can be difficult and expensive especially for small and mid-sized cities with few affordable and tailored resources. In response, instead of developing a platform just for Peg, the IISD developed an open-source tool, known as Tracking-Progress, that could be used by communities of any size. This chapter explores how the IISD developed Tracking-Progress based on its experiences with Peg, provides insight into how a growing network of platforms is expanding the tool’s functionality, and shares how the Tracking-Progress tool is providing communities globally with the resources required to localize the United Nation’s sustainable development goals (SDGs).

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207