Training puppies provides students with 'Guiding Eyes' for community service, February 26, 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training puppies provides students with 'Guiding Eyes' for community service 2/26/14 A group of Alfred University (AU) students has begun a unique community service trend on campus raising Labrador puppies for Guiding Eyes for the Blind (GEB).The GEB Club was officially founded in fall 2013, although there have been dogs training for the program at AU since 2011, when Corissa Fanning &13 lived in Openhym Hall as a resident assistant with her puppy, Darrow.Fanning and Darrow were the inspiration for senior Casey Duncan, a sociology/political science major from Stuarts Draft, VA, and junior Emily Rechin, a biology major from Silver Creek, who were residents in Openhym at the time."Being first-years, it was always nice to have a dog in the building," said Duncan.She and Rechin decided to get involved in the program the following year and were matched with brothers, Jordan and Jester, respectively, who have become the flagship dogs for the club.Since that time, two other AU students have joined the program, with one more currently waiting to be matched with a puppy and several others interested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".