Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 4th International Symposium on Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD) was held at the Caltech campus in Pasadena, California, March 22-24, 2001 and was the first time this group had met on the West Coast.Thus, in addition to a contingent from Europe, there were a number of participants from Asia and the Pacific Rim. Increasingly international in attendance and presentations, the movement of electronic thesis and dissertation is one that universities from around the globe are learning about and participating in at remarkable rates.The mix of people at this conference was one of the most successful meetings of librarians, archivists, faculty, and academic administrators including deans, provosts, directors of the Office of Graduate Study and Research, systems administrators, vendors from the information industry, a few commercial publishers and related personnel with potential interest in how the ETD will evolve in the next few years.The ETD was born at Virginia Tech nearly a decade ago, when Gail McMillan took on the challenge of accepting dissertations in digital formats.Today, more and more institutions are learning from that experience and are using the thesis and dissertation (T&D) publications forms that increasingly lead to the more widespread mandate that all T&Ds should be submitted in electronic format.This conference has grown considerably, as has the scope of topics on the programs.There were several plenary sessions.The first and the last plenary session focused on the Unesco International Guide for ETDs now in the works and featured Axel Plathe from Unesco and Ed Fox from Virginia Tech.The ETD Guide Web site describes the effort (http://etdguide.org)and is a resource for graduate students who are writing an electronic thesis or dissertation, for faculty who want to mentor ETD authors, and for administrators and IT personnel who want to initiate ETD programs.The concept, NDLTD (Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations), grew out of the Unesco work and was described by the first panel of speakers.Joe Moxley from the University of South Florida articulated that authors of ETDs use writing space differently and that this is an emerging new genre in scholarly communication.The set-up from the first plenary suggested the importance of the technical issues, how different disciplines are "growing" the ETD and how similar this product of scholarly output is to other open source products, found on http://www.theses.organd http://www.openarchives.orgThe first plenary introduced indeed how global all these concerns are together with speakers from Canada, USA, France, India, and Germany.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.535 | 0.468 |
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".