MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387935423 · doi:10.11647/obp.0363.27

27. Who cares about procurement?

2023· book-chapter· en· W4387935423 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Book Publishers · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Educational Techniques
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementPerspective (graphical)Ask priceKey (lock)SociologyPublic relationsKnowledge managementBusinessManagementComputer scienceEngineeringMarketingPolitical scienceComputer securityArtificial intelligenceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good and bad tech make their way into HE classrooms via procurement processes, so understanding how those processes work – and how to hack them for the better – is key to any possible “goodness” in HE’s future. In this uniquely conversational chapter, Anne-Marie Scott and Brenna Clarke Gray discuss procurement from the perspective of administration and academic staff, and ask how it might be possible to reimagine a process that invites more voices to the table to make better choices about educational technologies together.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.288 · 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