MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6947778306 · doi:10.4224/23001371

Guide de l'utilisateur : CNP 2005 : Énoncés d'application et énoncés d'intention

2008· standard· fr· W6947778306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2008
Typestandard
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivision (mathematics)Work (physics)Relation (database)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les codes modèles nationaux de construction de 2005 ont une nouvelle structure « axée sur les objectifs » constituée de trois divisions (A, B et C). Pour la première fois, les codes contiennent des objectifs et des énoncés fonctionnels précis (voir la division A), qui sont des énoncés décrivant les fonctions que les composants d'un bâtiment ou d'une installation doivent accomplir ainsi que les objectifs que doivent atteindre ces fonctions. La plupart des dispositions de la division B - maintenant appelées solutions acceptables - sont liées à au moins l'un de ces objectifs et énoncés fonctionnels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.060

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.286 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207