MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095120904

AWARD for SERVICE TERMS OF REFERENCE Purpose

2015· article· en· W7095120904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNominationClosing (real estate)Service (business)Work (physics)ReceiptExecutive committeeOfficer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Award for Service recognizes outstanding service and dedication to the Newfoundland engineering/geoscience professions through involvement in PEGNL or other Newfoundland or Canadian professional, consulting or technical associations and societies, and for their work in furthering the role of PEGNL and other associations and societies during the career of the professional engineer or professional geoscientist. Eligibility Criteria The nominee must meet the following requirements: Be a professional engineer (P.Eng.) or professional geoscientist (P.Geo.) and be a member in good standing with PEGNL. Have carried out major achievements. Members of PEGNL Board of Directors are not considered eligible for an award until completion of their term of office. Nomination Procedures The Awards Committee will set the closing date for receipt of nominations each year and the Chief Executive Officer will forward the call for nominations to the members. The closing date will normally be on or before February 28th. All nominations should normally be supported and submitted to the Awards Committee by a PEGNL member; however, the Awards Committee may also select nominees independently. Each nomination shall be accompanied by a description of the work and achievements of the nominee for the award, together with supporting evidence for committee consideration. Selection Criteria Consideration is given to continued leadership in the profession and in the community, to outstanding achievements, and to recognition obtained. Nominees will be considered for achievement and undertakings as follows: Active participation in engineering or geoscience associations, societies, institutes, etc. (40%) Engineering or geoscience excellence, and recognition of achievement within the profession, business or industry, or education sector that has set a benchmark for engineers or geoscientists to strive for. (25%) Public education and understanding of the role of engineering or geoscience, and professional engineers or professional geoscientists in Canadian society. (20%) Active participation in commissions, voluntary organizations, community organizations and other paid or unpaid work beyond the profession. (15%)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.575
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.004 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207