MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6949573190 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1208709

"Let'S Start A Journal!" The Multidisciplinary Graduate Student Journal As Educational Opportunity

2018· article· en· W6949573190 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachSet (abstract data type)Conceptual frameworkGraduate studentsConceptual modelGraduate education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<strong>Final published version available online here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0021.109?view=text;rgn=main</strong> The University of Lethbridge is a medium-sized, primarily undergraduate, comprehensive research university on the Canadian Prairies in Alberta. It has a small but growing graduate school, the majority of students within which are studying at the Masters level. For many years, the graduate students’ elected representative body, the Graduate Students Association (GSA), has sponsored an annual refereed conference, “Meeting of the Minds.” In 2015, the GSA decided to supplement this conference with an accompanying journal, also called "Meeting of the Minds." This article discusses the lessons learned in establishing this journal and overseeing its first two years of operations (and first year of publication). In doing so, it concentrates on two particular sets of problems: philosophical, economic, and sociological issues that arose at the conceptual level as we set about establishing a multi-disciplinary, institution-focussed graduate journal; and technical, bibliographic, organizational, and economic issues we encountered in attempting to address these conceptual concerns and ensure the long-term viability of the research we accepted and published. While we have not been able to solve all the conceptual problems that arose during our first two years of operation, we have developed several solutions on the organizational, technological, economic, and bibliographic levels that we believe can be used by others establishing similar scholar- or student-led journals. <strong>Final published version available online here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0021.109?view=text;rgn=main</strong>

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.023

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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