Opening Address to the VIth IOSTE Symposium for Central and Eastern European Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am delighted to have been asked to open this IOSTE Regional Symposium. The Central and Eastern European Region of IOSTE has been a very significant one right from the very beginning of our organization in 1979. As we know, at that time a substantial divide separated East and West - a divide of ideology and values which bred suspicion, ignorance and fear on both sides. Science and technology in particular were carefully guarded during the Cold War, and the normal lifeblood of science - the critical examination and discussion between peers around the world - was obstructed. This was also the case for science and technology education.\nThen in 1979 a group of science and technology educators met in Halifax, Canada to consider ways of building bridges across this divide to encouraging contact and dialogue between education researchers on both sides. This was the origin of the International Organization for Science and Technology Education, officially established in 1984.\nFrom the start, IOSTE has been an organization valuing global rather than partisan perspectives, collegiality rather than competition, and commonalities rather than differences. According to the first Chair of IOSTE, Charles Posa McFadden, the founders were motivated by 'the potential value to all science and technology educators of improved contacts between west and east, north and south' (McFadden, 2005). This philosophy has guided the structure, principles and activities of IOSTE in the 28 years since that first meeting.\nIOSTE is most 'international' of the science and technology education (STE) organizations and is not dominated by, or located in, any particular part of the world. Today its members come from over 60 countries, grouped into 14 regions. At international symposia, members from each region elect a representative to serve on the IOSTE board until the next symposium, usually in two years. As you know, the immediate past representative for this region was Miia Rannikmae, and the current representative is Vincentas Lamanauskas. I have worked with both and can tell you that his region has been very fortunate to have had two such active and passionate representatives in succession.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.183 | 0.051 |
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".