MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414833251 · doi:10.1386/public_00236_1

Crossing Fonds -- Pollinating Access and Interpretation – Building a Space for Online Collaboration

2025· article· en· W4414833251 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Diamond, Karen Knights, Dana Claxton, Andrea Fatona, Melanie Hardbattle

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsLibrary and Archives CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinterpretationInterpretation (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Range (aeronautics)Key (lock)The Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crossing Fonds is an online archive platform that addresses the need to formalize collaborative access across institutional, community and counter archives; enable research, scholarship, and reinterpretation of collections through inclusive filters; and collaboratively produce a replicable open-source digital ecosystem/platform. Bringing together these distinct types of archives raises the range of interest in digital materials on the part of their users and does so in a spirit of collaboration, reciprocity, co-design, and co-learning.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublicSame topicPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalFrench-language works237,207