MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967753504 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.13143364

D2.1 Case Studies' Strategic Plan

2022· article· en· W6967753504 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicStrategic Planning and Analysis
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsStrategic planningPlan (archaeology)Strategic managementComponent (thermodynamics)Strategic financial managementStrategic control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document outlines the formal strategic plan for each case study in the CHORIZO project. The strategic plan is aimed at refining each case studies’ objectives, give a detail description of scheduled actions and data collection techniques, possible risks in the implementation of these actions, mitigation measures as well as periodic assessment procedures to determine the extent to which each case study advances toward its objectives.The document starts with an introduction on the overall project objectives and structure, and highlights the essential components of case studies strategic plans. In the next chapters (2 to 6), each component of the strategic plan is explained with information specific for each case study. The document ends with a conclusion and steps to follow in the management of the case study to ensure timely attainment of case study objectives.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, 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 score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.160 · 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