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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Institutional repositories (IR) represent an innovative solution to many of the challenges encountered in the rapidly evolving world of scholarly publishing, such as open access and the preservation of the growing array of digital content. This workshop is intended to help academic authors, research library and IT directors and their staff plan for the implementation and full deployment of repositories designed to house a diversity of resources, such as articles, data sets, images, video, and courseware.To be presented jointly by a team consisting of a senior programmer, a service co-ordinator and a faculty member, and using the deployment of T-Space (IR at the University of Toronto) this workshop will focus on the technical issues as well as the cultural and management dimensions of establishing a repository. Topics will include:o the technical requirements for establishing and operating an IRo business modelso key policy issueso how institutional repositories fit together with other resources,o including subject based repositorieso how to engage faculty and library staff participationo strategic and resource implications
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.102 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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 it