Action: for review by WG2 and other experts prior to WG2 meeting in Toronto Distribution: WG2 delegates and experts Replaces: N2676 Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The characters presented in this document are those from the PDAM ballot document plus some of the proposed characters from National Body comments. Characters that were not part of the ballot document have been highlighted. Most of the characters presented in this document have been reviewed by the Unicode Technical Committee — where they have been approved by UTC for addition to a future version of the Unicode Standard, that information is presented in a marginal note. A series of $$$ $ indicates the presence of a issue that needs to be resolved as part of synchronization. Manner of Presentation The characters have been presented in the same style that would be used for publishing the Unicode Standard, with the addition of marginal notes documenting the source of the characters. This was done deliberately in order to be able to document some of the draft annotations for the reviewers. The character names and code points shown are the ones that will be used in the FPDAM, with exception of any ISO character name comments and Annex P annotation ‘*’, which are suppressed in this style of presentation. Where such omission occurs, it has been noted in an annotation. Unlike the presentation style to be used for the actual FPDAM, but like document N2676 which this document replaces, the new characters are not shown in the context of the existing characters. The existing characters will be shown in the actual PDAM document. The occasional use of the word in this draft is an artifact of the production process
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.581 | 0.566 |
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".