MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285092597 · doi:10.3390/challe13020030

Designing the Microbes and Social Equity Symposium: A Novel Interdisciplinary Virtual Research Conference Based on Achieving Group-Directed Outputs

2022· article· en· W4285092597 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne L. Ishaq, Emily Wissel, Patricia G. Wolf, Laura Grieneisen, Erin M. Eggleston, Gwynne Mhuireach, Michael Friedman, Anne Lichtenwalner, Jessica Otero Machuca, Katherine Weatherford Darling, Amber L. Pearson, Frank S. Wertheim, Abigail J. Johnson, Leslie Hodges, Sabrina K. Young, Charlene C. Nielsen, Anita L. Kozyrskyj, Jean D. MacRae, Elise M. Myers, Ariangela J. Kozik, Lisa Marie Tussing-Humphreys, Mónica Trujillo, Gaea Daniel, Michael R. Kramer, Sharon M. Donovan, Myra Arshad, Joe Balkan, Sarah Hosler

Bibliographic record

VenueChallenges · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
KeywordsConversationPublic relationsEngineering ethicsEquity (law)SociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Microbes and Social Equity working group was formed in 2020 to foster conversations on research, education, and policy related to how microorganisms connect to personal, societal, and environmental health, and to provide space and guidance for action. In 2021, we designed our first virtual symposium to convene researchers already working in these areas for more guided discussions. The symposium organizing team had never planned a research event of this scale or style, and this perspective piece details that process and our reflections. The goals were to (1) convene interdisciplinary audiences around topics involving microbiomes and health, (2) stimulate conversation around a selected list of paramount research topics, and (3) leverage the disciplinary and professional diversity of the group to create meaningful agendas and actionable items for attendees to continue to engage with after the meeting. Sixteen co-written documents were created during the symposium which contained ideas and resources, or identified barriers and solutions to creating equity in ways which would promote beneficial microbial interactions. The most remarked-upon aspect was the working time in the breakout rooms built into the schedule. MSE members agreed that in future symposia, providing interactive workshops, training, or collaborative working time would provide useful content, a novel conference activity, and allow attendees to accomplish other work-oriented goals simultaneously.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0040.025
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.748
GPT teacher head0.646
Teacher spread0.103 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChallengesSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207