MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096384428

How to Build the Per- fect Igloo

2016· article· en· W7096384428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Architectural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDome (geology)AmateurChord (peer-to-peer)Blade (archaeology)Process (computing)MultitudeTask (project management)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building an igloo, or dome in general, is a task humanity has faced since antiquity. The chord lengths of geodesic domes were considered classified military information in the United States until the sixties, and some believe that the secrets of medieval cathedral dome build-ers form the origins of Freemasonry Even now, the construction is not an easy procedure. The Inuit are known for their ability to build snow domes. They build layers of bricks in a spiral pat-tern, causing the dome to close in loxodromically (see Figure 1) Due to the multitude of different brick shapes, this method is rather difficult for the amateur to carry out. Mathematical Formulation In developing an easier process for igloo-build-ing, we are interested the following question: is it

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.007

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.166 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Architectural StudiesFrench-language works237,207