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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.023
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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