Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a brief history of, ConfSys, a conference management system, that has been used for over 15 years to support a number of international academic conferences. It is a complete system that has all functions automated with the possibility of the program chair overriding any of its decision. We have found that in most instances, the decisions made by the system need very minor changes. This paper describes another step in its automation process involving the submission made by authors and its processing by a proposed intelligent module. The new module will extract the salient metadata which we believe are more relevant than the ones entered by authors. This would ensure reliable paper-related details like title, author, coauthor, organization, abstract, keyword, etc. are being captured instead of users adding these details first-hand. The system requires users to verify the extracted information and correct them if required, further improving the paper allocation process to reviewers based on matching the reviewer’s interests with extracted keywords and topics, thus improving the quality of relevance of the reviews and comments to the authors. This in turn would improve the quality of the publications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".