MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W828977317

Ad-Hoc Committee on the Restructuring of IAML/Rapport Du Comite Special Sur la Restructuration De l'AIBM/Bericht Des Ad-Hoc-Komitees Zur Neustrukturierung der IVMB

2013· article· de· W828977317 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John H. Roberts, Richard Chesser, Jan Guise, Barbara Wiermann

Bibliographic record

VenueFontes artis musicae · 2013
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringSteering committeePolitical scienceLibrary scienceOrder (exchange)Plan (archaeology)Operations researchLawManagementComputer scienceBusinessEngineering managementEngineeringHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ad-Hoc Committee on Restructuring of was appointed by Board in October 2012 and charged with investigating possible changes to structure of organisation, focusing specifically on administrative structure of (Board, Council and General Assembly). The Terms of Reference further state that The purpose of any proposed restructure is to ensure that has an improved decision-making process, thus making it a more responsive and effective organisation. must have a structure and strength of purpose that will support its goals and assist its members to operate effectively on both a national and international level. In its deliberations Committee took into account minutes of sessions on the future of IAML held during Moscow, Dublin and Montreal conferences, final report of Strategy Committee, and other relevant documents supplied by President. Beginning in October we corresponded extensively via e-mail, and we benefitted greatly from a two-hour conference call on 21 November. As instructed we have concentrated chiefly on broad picture. In some cases we have found it necessary to go into a good deal of detail in order to explore implications of our recommendations, but we have not attempted to resolve every potential difficulty, recognizing that many subsidiary questions are better addressed at a later stage when larger outlines of a plan have been determined by Board and Council. This report is presented under a series of headings. However, as will be readily apparent many of issues involved are closely intertwined. Overall Structure. At international level has a three-tier governance structure, consisting of Board, Council and General Assembly. Primary decision-making authority is vested in Council. This structure reflects original pattern of international meetings: a full-scale congress was held every three years, during which General Assembly met and transacted such essential business as approval of a triennial budget and election of President and Vice-Presidents. In intervening years, smaller provided an opportunity for individual groups to meet, their leaders forming Council. Obviously functional distinction between congresses and conferences disappeared long ago, except for constitutionally mandated meeting of General Assembly every three years and associated election of officers. But overall structure of organization has remained essentially unchanged. In many ways this structure has served well. With it organization has grown and flourished. Yet in recent years there has been a widespread perception that present system was not working as effectively as membership would like. Our committee has identified four principal problems. First, Council in its present form is not well suited to serve as primary decision-making body of organization. It is too large to permit in-depth exploration of complex issues and too much of its meeting time is devoted to hearing reports of one kind or another. As a result, in practice most decisions are made by Board and then ratified by Council, often without much debate. Yet as Council meets only once a year, Board is often forced to delay implementation of decisions reached at its midyear meeting or earlier until they can be submitted to Council. The need to seek Council approval also draws out other processes unnecessarily, for example electing officers, which currently takes a year from determination of slate of candidates to announcement of election results. Second, in interest of increased openness and wider participation in administration of IAML, it has become customary for General Assembly to meet every year, usually in conjunction with Closing Session of conference. At same time, more and more members have been taking advantage of right granted them under Rules of Procedure to attend Council meetings as observers (Rule IV, no. …

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.026

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFontes artis musicaeSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207