MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394907931 · doi:10.18817/rlj.v8i1.3478

INTERVIEW WITH PHILIP SMITH, CHAIR OF THE L. M. MONTGOMERY INSTITUTE

2024· article· en· W4394907931 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Eliane Aparecida Galvão Ribeiro Ferreira, Tatiane Rodrigues Lopes dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueREVISTA DE LETRAS - JUÇARA · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsArtArt historyManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This text aims to present an interview with Dr. Philip Smith, professor of Psychology at the University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI) and chair of the L. M. Montgomery Institute (LMMI). The L. M. Montgomery Institute, located in Charlottetown, Canada, provides a dynamic research center focused on the life and work of the Canadian author L. M. Montgomery (Lucy Maud Montgomery). Montgomery is best known for her book Anne of Green Gables, published in 1908 by the L. C. Page Company. She also wrote twenty novels, an autobiography, and hundreds of short stories and poems. The LMMI, founded in 1993 by Dr. Elizabeth Epperly, has been dedicated to promoting research into the life, work, and culture of L. M. Montgomery. This interview results from a training program conducted at the University of Prince Edward Island, with funding provided by the CAPES Foundation (Process n.: 88887.838993/2023-00). Keywords: L. M. Montgomery. L. M. Montgomery Institute. Philip Smith.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREVISTA DE LETRAS - JUÇARA→Same topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology→French-language works237,207→