North American Laser Ablation Workshop 2015 : Program and Abstracts
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
In the mid--1990's, a small collection of laser ablation users came together to informally exchange ideas surrounding the use of laser ablation.Over the course of ~ 20 years the European Workshop for Laser Ablation (EWLA) has evolved into a highly successful, international meeting attracting in excess of 200 participants from all over the world.Several years ago, Japan created its own Laser Ablation Workshop attracting laser ablation users from all over Japan and keynote international speakers.There is no doubt that this Japanese Workshop will also evolve into a highly successful event.Up until now, most laser ablation users in North America have had no forum to exchange ideas surrounding laser ablation and its implementation.The Organizing Committee felt that this needed to change, and thus "NALAW" was born with the goal of facilitating Laser Ablation knowledge transfer and promoting a sense of community amongst North American Laser Ablation users.At the time of writing, almost 120 participants from Canada, United States, and Mexico and from further afield such as South Africa, Australia and Norway, are onboard.It is, of course, the Organizers' goal that NALAW becomes a successful and regular event in its own right.We thank you for helping us take this first step, and we wish you an enjoyable and fruitful time in Austin.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it