MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249035536 · doi:10.1002/cpet.13

Preparing and Presenting a Talk

2017· article· en· W4249035536 on OpenAlexaff
Michael More, Christine Sjolander, Stephen Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Unit (ring theory)World Wide WebPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceBusinessMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract How information is presented can have as much impact as the information itself. In order to ensure that you're getting your message across to the audience, you need to prepare your talk with as much care as you designed your research. This unit outlines information on how to prepare a great talk and deliver it for maximum effectiveness. © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1730.118

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.408 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols Essential Laboratory TechniquesSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207