MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243945560 · doi:10.1109/emr.2018.2847098

EMR Sustainability Department Mission Statement

2018· article· en· W4243945560 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Vachon

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Engineering Management Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMission statementStatement (logic)SustainabilityBusinessEngineering managementEngineeringManagementPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This department seeks papers that present technologies or innovation to improve environmental and social practices or performance while maintaining an adequate level of economic performance. Engineering and technological solutions pertaining to product eco-design, energy efficiency, waste reduction, or resource conservation are all relevant for the department. The contribution of engineering management to address social challenges around the world such as workers’ health and safety, water accessibility, or population well-being (e.g., security, and affordable housing) are also pertinent. Empirical-based methodology comprising both qualitative case studies, ethnography, and field studies, and quantitative research experiments, surveys, archival data, simulations are all welcome. Papers with mathematical modeling should be included described in a way that are aligned with the overall mission of the IEEE Engineering Management Review Journal. Practical and managerial insights as well as technological developments in sustainability are part of the mission of the journal and play an important role in papers on this topic.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1030.084

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Engineering Management ReviewSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207