National Research Council – Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation: Proposed process for evaluating collaborative projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Research Council Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation (NRC – IFCI) is a government institution charged with aiding the development of the fuel cell industry in Canada. One way in which this is accomplished is for the NRC – IFCI to engage in collaborative partnerships with other organizations. The current process for evaluating and selecting these projects relies heavily on the knowledge and intuition of a few key individuals, and lacks the structure to align organizational and project goals. This project will propose changes which will address these issues. It will also make recommendations for further improvement. The proposed changes are intended to start a dialogue. The impact will be greatly enhanced by contributions from the existing agents of the NRC – IFCI who are currently making decisions on collaborative projects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.348 | 0.403 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".