MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320400658 · doi:10.53841/bpscpf.2015.1.273.24

Developing a cultural consultancy service

2015· article· en· W4320400658 on OpenAlexaff
Iyabo Fatimilehin, Aneela Pilkington, Kim van Silfhout, Martha McCann

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology Forum · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService (business)Context (archaeology)Process (computing)SociologyService designKnowledge managementBusinessPublic relationsEngineering ethicsService delivery frameworkProcess managementEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer scienceMarketingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the development of a cultural consultancy service in the context of a community psychology approach. It outlines the issues the cultural consultancy service is designed to address, the processes involved in setting it up and the challenges that were encountered in the process.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.711
GPT teacher head0.680
Teacher spread0.031 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology ForumSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207