Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document contains data highlights from the 75 minute workshop conducted at the Placemaking Leadership Forum in Vancouver, British Columbia on September 16, 2016. It offers a representation of the ideas that emerged during the discussion and consensus building processes. Presented here is the information reported on the recording sheets and posted on the flip charts at each table, as well as the information that participants shared on the flip chart sheets as they entered the room at the beginning of the session. All of the individual forms collected during the session are still undergoing compilation and analysis, and the findings will be reported in a future document. Please note that this information represents views provided by participants, and it offers us insight into some of the key areas that we should be considering as we continue to: • Make a case for linking PLACE and HEALTH • Encourage conversations and actions related to helping us to better understand the link between Place and Health • Better communicate about the link between Place and Health • Take action to positively impact community wellbeing through place-led change efforts. Information outlining the workshop agenda and processes, the notes and slides for the workshop presentations, and the forms used to facilitate workshop interactions are offered in the Appendix.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".