REHOUSE public report: Design of social activities tailored to the local contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: The present document is the REHOUSE report D1.4 developed within WP1 “Social Innovation for People-centric Renovation Processes“ in the framework of the European co-funded REHOUSE project. This report presents the design of the social activities adapted to the local contexts in order to contribute to the validation of the Renovation Packages at TRL7.Social actions will include co-design approach and methods to increase the acceptance of technical innovations. Social activities, in general, will be oriented towards “behavioural change”. This report presents information about the REHOUSE basic principles in terms of social innovation activities and behavioural change in addition to some key elements to plan an engagement strategy. The importance of the facilitator’s role is also highlighted and presented.First plans of social actions and events foreseen for each of the four REHOUSE Demo-sites are provided. These are the plans at the current stage of progress of the project but potential adaptations to the plan could be considered (if needed) through the project execution based on the real state to progress and additional needs from the demo-sites. Further public reports of the REHOUSE project: Publications – REHOUSE
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.006 |
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".