Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The average length of the Canadian interviews was 1 hour 25 minutes. 1 In the preinterview phase a total of 14 departments were identified in which GBA activity was assumed.This assumption was based on the participation of these departments in the IDC on GBA and on existing and published case studies.With the support of SWC, knowledgeable individuals and GBA experts in the respective departments were identified and contacted by email, followed up by phone calls in case of nonresponsiveness.Of these 14 departments, a total of 18 members representing 12 departments initially agreed to participate in an expert interview on GBA.Two departments declined the interview request.In addition to the public servants, two external academic experts on GBA, who are professors at two Canadian universities, were interviewed.Three original participants from two departments later withdrew their interviews in the review process.Reasons for withdrawal did not need to be stipulated.In the end, a total of two scholars and 15 public servants representing ten Canadian Federal Departments (as listed in the following table 26) remained in the final sample.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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 it