{"id":"W2807123811","doi":"10.3138/jsp.49.3.02","title":"Journal Retractions: Some Unique Features of Research Misconduct in China","year":2018,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Scholarly Publishing","topic":"Academic integrity and plagiarism","field":"Social Sciences","cited_by":26,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"National Institutes of Health; Northwestern University","keywords":"China; Misconduct; Boom; Scientific misconduct; Research data; Political science; Public relations; Criminology; Law; Sociology; Engineering; Library science; Computer science; Medicine; Subject (documents); Alternative medicine","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[{"model":"gemma","categories":["metaresearch","research_integrity"],"domain":"evaluation","study_design":"observational","genre":"empirical","about_ca_system":false,"about_ca_topic":false,"confidence":"low","status":"direct model label, unvalidated"},{"model":"gpt","categories":["research_integrity"],"domain":null,"study_design":"observational","genre":"empirical","about_ca_system":false,"about_ca_topic":false,"confidence":"high","status":"direct model label, unvalidated"}],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":["metaresearch","research_integrity"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.01767764,0.0004021261,0.0005606779,0.01451782,0.002497185,0.003111566,0.001012127,0.0007868209,0.002753838],"category_scores_gemma":[0.07352741,0.0002911029,0.0006207843,0.01672597,0.001917991,0.002238504,0.002346504,0.0009218617,0.0003908756],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002675943,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.005484419,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.005998857,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.008486543,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9750007,0.005154588,0.006550478,0.001630663,0.01014049,0.001523002],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.8136677,0.04329938,0.1047749,0.008589241,0.02565529,0.004013533],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":"evaluation","domain_candidate":"evaluation","domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002305465,0.00009331822,0.8696092,0.000972578,0.0001516188,0.001394012,0.01528221,0.0001535297,0.0005663802,0.002234316,0.01028009,0.09903222],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.00001313736,0.0001210229,0.9648415,0.0003323246,0.0001000026,0.00156499,0.01204623,0.0005693288,0.0005943368,0.0008933512,0.01883457,0.00008930832],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9731123,0.003919072,0.001281198,0.003483458,0.0002281637,0.0003607979,0.003119977,0.0001123211,0.01438262],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9938166,0.001590929,0.001026068,0.0003393085,0.0002195415,0.0001754899,0.00108829,0.00002407284,0.001719721],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9992132,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.09348941,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.09045961053599434,"score_gpt":0.4077158599293308,"score_spread":0.3172562493933365,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}