VTS 2012 Best Paper award [includes Best Special Session Award]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year, VTS proudly presents the Best Paper Award to the author(s) of the most outstanding paper from those presented at the previous year's symposium. The candidates for this honor are initially selected based solely on the numerical ratings of the reviewers and symposium attendees, as recorded on the review forms and the session rating cards. The Best Paper Award Judges then carefully review the candidate papers as published in the proceedings. The judges provide numerical scores and comments for each candidate paper. The scores and comments are compiled to select the best paper. The paper selected by VTS 2012 Best Paper Award Judges for the Best Paper Award is: "Session 5A.1: Direct Connection and Testing of TSV and Microbump Devices using NanoPierce Contactor" by Onnik Yaglioglu and Ben Eldridge of FormFactor Inc. This year's Award selection committee members are also listed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.264 | 0.233 |
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".