MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912504986 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3595452

SSHOC D1.2 Quality Assurance & Risk Assessment Plan

2019· article· en· W6912504986 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsCanarie
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsDeliverableProject management triangleQuality assuranceRisk management planPlan (archaeology)Project planningProject managementProject planWork (physics)Risk management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.016

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.300 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207