Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Living Labs have emerged as resilient research and innovation infrastructures and have been shown to be a “key” to the integration of research and innovation processes in real-life settings, they still fail to provide and function according to unified and harmonized processes that are easily accessible and exploitable by academic and industry researchers. Towards this end, VITALISE aims to create the first Harmonization guidelines for Living Labs that will facilitate the access of researchers to the provided infrastructures. This document presents the work performed for the Harmonization of the way Living Labs work for the fifth semester of VITALISE. Within the VITALISE project, various Harmonization activities were carried out with consortium partners and external stakeholders, to develop the Standard v0.5, building on the work done for the earlier versions of the Standard (v0.1, v0.2, v0.3 and v0.4). The first version of the Standard (v0.1) provided an overview of the state-of-the-art information about Living Labs in the VITALISE consortium and served as the foundational deliverable for the VITALISE Standards. The second version of the Standard (v0.2) introduced the process of developing and disseminating a Wiki page that incorporated v0.1 and updated the parts of the Standard that described the data and technologies used in living labs, using a Delphi study method, and collected the initial set of terms for the living lab lexicon. Additionally, during the second semester, the Harmonization Board was established, and a meeting with the Harmonization Body was held. In the third version of the Standard (v0.3) the device and technology taxonomy were updated through a Delphi study, several meetings were held for updating the services and procedures categorization, as well as several activities and sessions for collecting and achieving a preliminary agreement on living lab lexicon terms. Moreover, two templates were developed for the co-creation sessions conducted within the Joint Research Activities (JRAs) and also, during this third semester, the project held its second plenary meeting in Helsinki and the second Harmonization Body meeting. For the fourth version of the Standard (v0.4) a wide range of actions took place, including meetings and activities to update the Living Lab Lexicon terms and LL services, as well as define the Living Lab Innovation and Research phases. In addition, an analysis of the Open Call data was conducted related to stakeholders, services, and devices and some interviews with partners from the consortium and beyond. Furthermore, the finalization and approval of data and devices taxonomy from the Delphi study occurred, alongside the occurrence of the 3rd Harmonization Body meeting and one Harmonization Board meeting in January and February, respectively. In this iteration for the current deliverable (Standard Version 0.5), a series of actions unfolded, commencing with meetings and activities aimed at refining and validating the Research and Innovation process and create a visual tool for the representation of the process. Progress was achieved in the validation of the general KPI table and the proposal of a preliminary set of questions for the self-assessment tool for living labs. Substantial advancements were made in the realm of methods and tools, including a preliminary categorization of the questionnaires and instruments utilized in the JRA pilots. Additionally, some ethics tools, along with templates for Data Controllers Agreements have been specified and presented in this deliverable. Lastly, the 4th and 5th Harmonization Body meetings were held, alongside a dedicated session in Open Living Lab Days 2023, focusing on the VITALISE Harmonization journey. The final Section of this document presents the Standard v0.5 that will be also published in the living lab harmonization wiki page.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.029 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".