MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099538117

Approving Body: President Authority: Responsible Executive Officer: President, delegated to the Vice-President (Administration) Delegate: Comptroller Contact: Comptroller

2008· article· en· W7099538117 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistory and Developments in Astronomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCashCash managementCash flow statementOperating cash flowAccountabilityPrivilege (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reason for Policy The purpose of this Policy is to: 1.1 Establish circumstances in which petty cash funds may be provided to University (a) departments and staff; Define allowable uses of petty cash funds; and (b) Establish responsibility for safeguarding petty cash funds. (c) Part II Policy Content A petty cash fund is a small amount of cash entrusted to a University of Manitoba employee. Its 2.1 purpose is to facilitate the reimbursement of small, purely incidental, non-recurring University related expenditures in a timely and efficient manner. Although it is recognized that some areas rely on petty cash to allow for efficient operation of 2.2 University business, the provision of a petty cash fund is considered a privilege. This privilege may be withdrawn at any time. Petty cash funds should never be used for: meals, entertainment, travel and business expenses. 2.3 Reimbursement of these expenses should be claimed in accordance with the Travel and Business Expense Claims Policy. The custodian of each petty cash fund is at all times responsible for the total of the fund. 2.4 Requests for new petty cash funds or replenishment of existing petty cash funds should be 2.5 requested in accordance with the Petty Cash Procedure. Part III Accountability The Office of Legal Counsel is responsible for advising the Vice-President (Administration) that 3.1 a formal review of this Policy is required. The Comptroller is responsible for the implementation, administration and review of this Policy. 3.2 All University Staff are responsible for complying with this Policy. 3.3

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0150.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4460.539

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistory and Developments in AstronomyFrench-language works237,207