How was it for you? Two years of CPA convention evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CPA Conventions in 2001 and 2002 were held on university campuses at opposite ends of the country (Laval University, Ste-Foy, QC, and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC). In both yearssystematic evaluations were undertaken, in which semi-random samples of convention attendees were asked to respond on-site to surveyors. This survey technique should result in more valid data about attendees' opinions of the convention arrangements than the informal self-report technique used previously. The results of the 2001 survey showed that attendees were generally pleased with the convention, but not pleased with the site; overall, there was no clear guidance on the acceptability of university sites as compared to hotel/convention centres. This poster will compare the results of the 2002 survey to the 2001 survey, and provide recommendations to the Convention Committee about possible changes in policy or procedure that might lead to further improvements in the CPA convention experience for members and non-members alike.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.098 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".