SSHOC D1.2 Quality Assurance & Risk Assessment Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document is the deliverable “D1.2 – Qualitative Assurance and Risk Assessment plan” of the Horizon2020 project “Social Sciences & Humanities Open Cloud” (hereinafter also referred to as “SSHOC”, project reference: 823782). This deliverable comprises the quality plan for the SSHOC project and the risk monitoring procedures to be used by project partners. The document outlines rules, mechanisms and processes, as well as resources that are established in order to maintain a high level of quality in the project implementation and its outcomes. It also contains procedures on how identification and monitoring of potential risks will be conducted, and it describes steps and actions needed to prepare and implement appropriate contingency plans. In conjunction with D1.1 SSHOC Project Management Plan, this document also serves as a core reference for the consortium organisation and delivery of the day-to-day work throughout the project and will be updated if required. The plan first describes the responsibilities in the project with regard to the quality of work and project outcomes, including progress indicators. It then refers to project-internal communication procedures, describing what was not documented already in other relevant project documents, going into details on document control and templates, and listing minimum requirements. The second part of the plan is focused on the actual procedures established within the project, and crucial for the quality of the final products, milestones reports, deliverables. A separate section is dedicated to describing the project Wiki page (SSHOC Guidelines, created in WP1), a living internal project platform, which this document will feed into and which will reflect future updates of this deliverable. Following on the general quality procedures, the document lists certain priority areas defined by the project (Dissemination, Marketplace, Tools and Services, Training), and quality measures and potential risks which concern specifically these areas, not covered by the rest of the document. The final part of the document explains the main principles and approach to risk management within the project, responsibilities for risk monitoring and tools and procedures provided. This plan will serve as a guide to both the project coordinator and partners, in order to ensure that quality reviews will occur at appropriate points in the project, and as a reference to understand participants responsibilities, concerning the project communication, deliverables and outcomes. It is applicable to all project-related activities, and thus compliance with the plan is mandatory for all involved in the project.
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 | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.119 |
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".