1 FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH FGSR Minimum Thesis Formatting Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All theses at the University of Alberta must contain the following components, in the order presented here (with several generally applicable requirements listed at the end): Your thesis is your work. Matters of style are matters for you to decide, subject to certain minimum university rules, and any requirements imposed by your particular degree program. For questions about the content within a thesis, ask your supervisor. Your supervisor can also advise if your department (or Faculty if non-departmentalized) has any specific requirements concerning a thesis. Theses at the University of Alberta can be written in the traditional, monograph format or in a multiple-manuscript, journal-article format (sometimes called a “paper-based ” thesis), or a combination of both formats. It is for the department (or Faculty if non-departmentalized) to provide guidance as to which formats are permitted and to set out the additional requirements for that format. All master’s and doctoral theses must conform to requirements of the Theses Canada program sponsored by Library and Archives Canada and the requirements of the University of Alberta Libraries, with these requirements included in this document. The distributor of a thesis makes no changes to the formatting of a submitted thesis; how the manuscript looks is entirely the responsibility of the author. Keep in mind that future readers of your thesis will likely read your thesis online, and thus you want your thesis to be readable as a PDF file. Starting on April 3, 2014, all University of Alberta theses must be submitted electronically. FGSR suggests that you work your way systematically through the following guidance document on minimum requirements, using the document like a checklist. You can tick the box for each component when you have verified that you have met the rules.
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 | 0.020 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.569 | 0.585 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".