PARTHENOS D8.6 Final Communication Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This deliverable presents the work of PARTHENOS Work Package (WP) 8 “Communication,dissemination and outreach” during the final year of the project (May 2018 – April 2019) and its half year extension (May – October 2019). The document builds on four earlier<br> deliverables; D8.2 Initial Communication Plan was produced in July 2015 and laid the foundation for our communication, dissemination and outreach strategy. While constantly adjusting our approach to the evolving project status, three updated versions to that document were produced: the first time in July 2016 – D8.3 First Year Communication Report, and Updated Communication Plan – the second time in July 2017 – D8.4 Second Year Communication Report, and Updated Communication Plan – and the third time in July 2018 – D8.5 Third Year Communication Report, and Updated Communication Plan. Whereas the Initial Communication Plan presented an overall dissemination and communication strategy, and provided a detailed plan of relevant activities for the project’s<br> first year, the First-, Second- and Third Year Communication Reports reflected on the implementation of the Initial Communication Plan during the project’s first, second and third twelve month periods, proposed minor corrections to the overall strategy, and set out our plans for each oncoming year. All PARTHENOS deliverables are available at: http://www.parthenos-project.eu/resources/projects-deliverables
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.029 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".