MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7057280470

International co-operation in the technical assessment field

2004· article· en· W7057280470 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)AccreditationQuality (philosophy)Work (physics)Technical barriers to tradeConformity assessmentTechnical standardInternational standardField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proponents of new and innovative construction products do not want to limit their products to one geographical area. They are looking at expanding their sales to other countries and even build new manufacturing plants abroad to supply manufactured construction goods. With today's communication facilities and the Internet, the world is becoming a global village. Therefore, construction products that may improve quality of life are being sought for import and export from all corners of the globe. However, these manufacturers face many challenges in exporting their products including high cost in repeating tests and analysis for technical assessment. Presently, there are no means of recognition for the technical assessment from one country to another. This paper highlights the different Canadian organizations that support manufacturers wanting to export their product and possibly obtain a technical assessment where required. Assistance provided by Canadian organizations is discussed and the Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) work on the international scene is presented with examples of how CCMC has interfaced on behalf of Canadian clients. This paper discusses CCMC experience with Russia, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom, with particular emphasis on the type of different agreements achieved and methods of approval accepted by these countries. It examines more closely construction products with a technical assessment in Canada and the need for a new assessment in another country. The paper looks at the performance requirements and technical assessment differences from one country to another, international standard testing procedures as a means of acceptance for product assessment and the testing laboratories accreditation and test results validation. This will represent a beginning to facilitate the understanding of differences between technical assessment in countries and establishing similar performance requirements while applying international testing

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0070.014
Scholarly communication0.0190.009
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.320 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→