From Young Observers to Young Actors: A Message to IUPAC from a few Young Observers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For many years, IUPAC has opened its doors to the younger chemists as observers to its activities, welcoming them in the midst of their General Assemblies. This is a unique opportunity for younger chemists to acquaint themselves with the work of the Divisions and Committees at an early stage and with limited commitment. In an article published in 2002, the Young Observers (YOs) program was characterized as “a way to seek innovative scientists” and “bring new expertise to IUPAC” [1]. Since 2013, the World Chemistry Leadership Meeting (WCLM) has invited all young observers to its symposium. In 2017, with a clever combination of “speed-networking” round tables, brainstorming and projects-crafting during the symposium, there is strong hope that a significant proportion of young observers will return as IUPAC active members during future meetings in Paris (2019) and Montréal (2021).
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 | 0.048 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".