MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220777606 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10510740.1

Geoscience Education Perspectives on Integrated, Coordinated, Open, Networked (ICON) Science

2022· preprint· en· W4220777606 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah K. Fortner, Cathryn A. Manduca, Hendratta Ali, Casey M. Saup, Samuel Cornelius Nyarko, Shannon M. Othus‐Gault, Viranga Perera, Vincent C. H. Tong, Anne Gold, Tanya Furman, Leilani Arthurs, Bridget K. Mulvey, Kristen St. John, Joel Singley, Elijah T. Johnson, M. R. Witter, R. L. Batchelor, Deron T. Carter, M. C. Damas, Lynsey E. LeMay, Karen M. Layou, Russanne Low, Huihui Wang, Kai Olson‐Sawyer, Amy Pallant, Katherine Ryker, Laura Lukes, Nicole LaDue, Katrien van der Hoeven Kraft

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld Wide WebElectronic mailIconComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practitioners and researchers in geoscience education embrace ICON (Integrated, Coordinated, Open science, and Networked) principles and have a history of using them to create and share educational resources, to move forward collective priorities, and to learn from one another. Geoscience education brings substantial expertise in social science research and its application to building individual and collective capacity. This can be used to support ICON processes and improve the coproduction of knowledge between geoscientists and diverse communities. Geoscience is an important part of the knowledge needed to advance equity at local to global scales. The geoscience education community has expanded its own ICON capacity through access to and use of shared resources and research findings, enhancing data sharing and publication, and leadership development. We prioritize continued use of ICON principles to develop effective and inclusive communities that increase equity in geoscience education and beyond, that support leadership and full participation of systemically non-dominant groups, and that enable global discussions and collaborations.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.046
Scholarly communication0.0200.020
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207