MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248337978 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.2326

Ten simple rules for Lightning and PechaKucha presentations.

2016· preprint· en· W4248337978 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Lortie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Simple (philosophy)Lightning (connector)Computer scienceTelecommunicationsMultimediaMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An interesting opportunity has emerged that bridges the gap between lengthy, detailed presentations of scientific findings and ‘sound bites’ appropriate for media reporting – very short presentations often presented in sets. Lightning or Ignite (20 slides @15 seconds each) and PechaKucha (20 slides @20 seconds each) presentations are common formats for short, rapid communications at scientific conferences and public events. The simple rules for making good presentations also apply, but these presentation formats provide both unique communication opportunities and novel challenges. In the spirit of light, quick, and exact (but without the fox), here are ten simple rules for presentation formats that do not wait for the speaker.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207