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
ILC Communications Workshop -- Vancouver July, 2006 \n\nThe LCSGA Communications Committee is planning a half-day workshop for the afternoon of July 18, 2006 in conjunction with the Vancouver Linear Collider Workshop. The goal of this workshop is to understand and come to agreement on a inspirational, consistent, credible, sustainable and differentiating ILC communications strategy for building a consensus of support for the ILC both inside and outside the HEP community. \n\nILC scientists and staff will be giving talks and communicating with scientific (both HEP and non-HEP) audiences. These talks must be clear, credible and consistent while demonstrating purposes and importance of the ILC.\n\nWorkshop outcomes include clarifying primary ILC audiences and needs, communications goals, obstacles to successful communications, and mitigation strategies to ensure we achieve our communication goals. A pre-workshop survey will be distributed to participants. Please reply as it will significantly help us prepare for the workshop. \n\nSubsequent to this workshop the communications team will develop and maintain up-to-date presentation outlines, tools, materials and resources to assist ILC presenters throughout the world. \n\nThe LCSGA Communication Committee members are Jonathan Bagger, Jim Brau, Neil Calder, Judy Jackson, Ritchie Patterson, and William Trischuk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.003 |
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