Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many disciplines, most conference presentations end when the conference does; they do not go on to become peer-reviewed articles. Yet there is also research to suggest that continuing to work with a conference paper to turn it into an article leads to higher research productivity overall, with additional benefits of increasing a researcher's confidence, motivation, and capacity for further research (Lee & Boud, 2003).This article was itself once a conference presentation or, more precisely, a workshop entitled “Transforming Your Conference Paper into a Journal Article” developed for University of Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan Library Association member librarians, and presented to researchers and writers from diverse disciplines. At those presentations attendees asked whether I would be turning this presentation into an article – a very meta question that did indeed seem like a logical next step! Synthesizing multidisciplinary scholarship on academic writing, resources from academic writing coaches, and case studies, this piece is intended to be a DIY workshop focusing on concrete strategies for addressing major barriers in the conference paper-to-article editing process.
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 | 0.042 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.019 |
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".