Chicago 2009: Planning Underway, Changes Afoot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Planning for Chicago 2009 has taken major steps toward producing what promises to be a stimulating and multidimensional conference program. We are working with the third largest submission pool in ICA's history (after San Francisco and Montreal), though conference submissions were down slightly compared to Montreal (by 2.4%), totaling 2,564 papers and 263 panels. The program will offer an exciting and provocative set of presentations, which will hopefully move us toward new ways of thinking about the field of communication. As we speak, reviewers from ICA's divisions and interest groups are evaluating submissions. Thanks to everyone who has colonized time from busy schedules to help review for the various divisions and interest groups. Thanks too to the unit program planners, who have been working tirelessly until now to make sure that things get done on time. Those of us on the planning side of the program are figuring out how best to accommodate the submission pool and work with an acceptance rate that makes sense for the association. In wrestling with the contrary demands created by active submissions and a clear interest among members to keep the conference at its present size, I've decided to implement the following changes: Scheduling a full line-up of panels and paper sessions on Monday, which has traditionally tended to be a lighter day of programming. Monday's schedule, which will conclude at the usual time, will also end with a closing plenary. 1.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.118 | 0.060 |
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".