Bibliographic record
Abstract
18-23. "Prehistory": slovenian academic community and transition | 11 University of ljubljana had only been able to undertake research work in laboratories, and some "institute people" were also lecturers at the University of ljubljana, so they were being involved in both types of setting.however, research institutes certainly expected more, such as partnership, at least, in the implementation of postgraduate studies.researchers led by saZU advocated for strengthening the scope and quality of postgraduate studies and for reducing the structural development gap with the West. 15in may, 1990, after taking power, the demos government which consisted of a wide-array of opposition figures to the communist led-governments in the late 1980s, dealt mainly with the status transformation of universities and institutes, which was a necessity after the abolition of self-governance.Governmental reforms were not always welcomed by academia, which accused the government of political bias, 16 resulting in the government postponing the much-awaited reforms.The government therefore adopted the Public research institutions act and the research activity act and structural dilemmas had to be delayed for a couple for years. 17already in 1991, the law on higher education had been agreed upon.nevertheless, the University of ljubljana then withdrew from the agreement.The rector of the University of maribor, alojz Kriman, complained that the University of ljubljana was withdrawing its consent to the solutions that had already been agreed upon, and that the minister was allegedly supporting this.On the other hand, the University of ljubljana had again taken the position that the government was once again using the University of maribor and its readiness to accept the government's views in order to apply pressure on the University of ljubljana concerning the reform. 18
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
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".