D5.3 Evaluation Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WP5 main objective is to deploy, test and evaluate ENVISION data products and services developed in WP3 and WP4. More specific within WP5: <strong>Products and services </strong>developed within WP3 and WP4 <strong>are used and tested under different conditions </strong>by the Business Customers (BC) and the Lighthouse customers (LC). <strong>Product and services are evaluated </strong>for each business case individually and from three different perspectives related to: o <strong>The performance, usability and effectiveness. </strong>We rate the ability of the product and services to cover PAs and CB’s identified needs using co-developed criteria within WP2 describing user requirements (functional and non). o <strong>The business value and acceptance. </strong>We evaluate product business value and acceptance for each business case, using criteria co-developed with the BC actors within the WP5 and indicators that quantify the business value and acceptance. o <strong>The impact on an economic, environmental, and societal level</strong>. Using impact indicators, we evaluate the impact at an economic, environmental, and societal level.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.155 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".