Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conferences are ostensibly structured around presentations, papers, and posters; and these are key to the success of any conference. By common agreement, the informal aspects of conferences — lunch, coffee breaks, and overheard conversations — are of lesser importance. Balisage produces persistent electronic proceedings, but the conference itself is face to face only. It is human interaction and serendipity that provide the most valuable, You are likely to attend both presentations you know yourself to be interested in and talks on topics you know little about. You may expand your areas of interest; you may learn something useful. A talk about a topic totally foreign to you may prompt you to think of a solution to one of your current problems or a new approach to a long-standing problem. With luck, you will also make a few new friends, connect with some old ones, make a helpful suggestion to a fellow participant, and have some fun in Montreal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.407 | 0.300 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".