MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027857294

Durham City Council Work Session February 20, 2025 (live stream)

2025· other· en· W7027857294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Archive (Internet Archive) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Session (web analytics)Presentation (obstetrics)Work (physics)Order (exchange)Public transport
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

0:00 Call to Order 1:34 Roll Call 2:25 Announcements by Council 8:07 Priority Items by the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk 11:33 Administrative Consent Items 17:37 Citizens' Matters PULLED ITEMS 25:19 6. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Grant Project Ordinance for FY2021-2022 34:38 Amend City Clerk Report 37:23 9. 2024 Fourth Quarter Crime Report 38:53 12. Supplemental Agreement #5 to Master Agreement #18925 with WSP USA Inc. for Design of Multimodal Safety Improvements on City-Maintained Roads 42:06 13. Supplemental Agreement #3 to Master Agreement #18919 with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for Design of Two-Way Conversion of Roxboro Street and Mangum Street 44:17 14. Second Amendment to the Contract with RATP Dev USA, Inc. for the Management, Operation, and Maintenance of the GoDurham Fixed Route Transit System 50:31 15. GoDurham FY2024 Annual Report PRESENTATIONS 51:18 9. 2024 Fourth Quarter Crime Report 1:49:47 22. Police Satisfaction Survey Results Presentation by ETC Institute 2:14:54 Break / Recess 2:19:57 21. FY 2024-25 Second Quarter Financial Report Supplemental Item 2:39:34 24. City Council Budget Requests FY2025-26 3:19:48 Settling the Agenda (one for vote for agenda items 1 - 20, General Business Public Hearings Item 23) 3:21:01 Adjournment Welcome to the Durham City Council Work Session for February 20, 2025 at 1 p.m. To view the meeting agenda, visit http://DurhamNC.gov/AgendaCenter. PLEASE NOTE: Comments left on this livestream will not be read or entered into the meeting record. For details on how to participate, visit https://www.durhamnc.gov/1345 To contact City Council members directly, visit https://www.durhamnc.gov/1323 Like: http://www.Facebook.com/CityOfDurhamNC Follow: http://www.Instagram.com/CityOfDurhamNC Listen: https://www.Spreaker.com/user/CityOfDurham - new! Visit: http://DurhamNC.gov

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternet Archive (Internet Archive)Same topicPolicy Transfer and LearningFrench-language works237,207