MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385434310 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-9579-3_6

Building Blocks

2023· book-chapter· en· W4385434310 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Parra Pennefather

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign Thinking · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Service (business)Product (mathematics)SoftwareComputer scienceHavenSoftware engineeringWorld Wide WebMarketingBusinessArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experienced creatives who prototype share a lot in common with improvisers. They are curious in their attempts to create something they haven’t experienced before. Some creatives are tasked to do this as part of their jobs, to find a new market for the product or service they are creating. To create rapidly they rely on a combination of skills, technique, and experience and are used to “ramping up” on a variety of different software applications that they can create their work with.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2430.138

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueDesign ThinkingSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207