MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323526414 · doi:10.1145/3545947.3576274

Discussing the History of Ideas in a Data Science Seminar

2022· article· en· W4323526414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Anderson, Kelly Bodwin, Alex Dekhtyar, Hunter Glanz, Foaad Khosmood, Lubomir Stanchev, Dennis L. Sun, Jonathan Ventura

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Unit (ring theory)Computer scienceCore (optical fiber)History of scienceData scienceLibrary scienceMathematics educationHistoryPsychologyEpistemologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one part of an NSF-sponsored Data Science Fellowship at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, a group of faculty offered a unique one-unit quarter-long seminar on the history of ideas behind the core principles of Data Science. We present an overview of this seminar, its learning objectives, and outcomes and lessons learned.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.021
Scholarly communication0.0200.026
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0060.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.547
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.053 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207