MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preface

2023· article· en· W4367852628 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceEngineeringEngineering ethicsSubject (documents)Work (physics)Political scienceSociologyManagementEngineering managementComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 6th International Conference on Eco-Engineering Development (The 6th ICEED 2022) was held virtually on November 16–17, 2022, hosted by the Faculty of Engineering, Bina Nusantara University, Indonesia. The 6th ICEED, specifically, aims to bring together researchers, engineers, scientists, and experts to not only share their ideas but also disseminate their knowledge and research on achieving comprehensive and immaculate eco-engineering. ICEED 2022 would focus on the research, analysis, and resolution of environmental development through innovative technology, green infrastructure, planning, and design, delivered by the keynote speakers and distinguished lecturers. The ICEED 2022 offered three scopes of interests, including sustainable infrastructure management and technology, eco-architecture planning and design, and innovative food technology. From all these scopes, ICEED 2022 received 225 submitted research papers. Through the double-blind peer-review process, the committee carefully selected 128 research papers that were presented at the conference. This conference is also very special because our keynote speakers are prominent scholars and professionals from Taiwan (Prof. Dr. Chin-Kun Wang), Canada (Assoc. Prof. Dr. Agus Pulung Sasmito), Brunei Darussalam (Assoc. Prof. SMN Arosha Senanayake, PhD), Saudi Arabia (Ardian Nengkoda, Ph.D.), and Indonesia (Prof. Dr. Eng. Made Suangga). They discussed cutting-edge ideas in eco-engineering from the perspectives of academics, professionals, and subject matter experts in various fields. Finally, I would like to convey my appreciation to the conference organizer, the technical program committee, and the reviewer. We also thank all the authors for their outstanding work in making the conference a success and worthwhile endeavor. We also want to express our sincere gratitude to the editors and managers at IOP Publishing for their supportive collaboration during the preparation of the proceedings. List of Organizing Committee is available in this Pdf.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.185 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207