Minutes of the iSCIMP portion of the Joint iSciMP-iTAP meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minutes were approved as written. iSAS Office asked to post them as “final”. 2. Review of proposed agenda (iSciMP portion only). Murray requested time to review the results of the recommendations and action items from the last meeting. This will be Agenda Item 2A. Kikawa requested time to provide a follow-up on the Kochi core repository and shorebased facilities. This will be Agenda Item 5A. With these modifications, the Agenda was unanimously approved. 2A. Results from Previous Meeting Murray reminds everyone of the several emails he sent out prior to the meeting for iSCIMP to consider, regarding many of the agenda items for this meeting. Copies were passed out to everyone again, along with the latest lab list for the Chikyu. All recommendations of the Alberta meeting were accepted by iPC with the exception of the OPCOM recommendation, which was noted as “received”. iPC responded favorably to iSciMP being involved in advice to SAS office and proponents on measurements issues. Changing of the proposal cover sheet fell through the cracks, however, for a
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.433 | 0.354 |
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".