MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1483046377 · doi:10.1136/bmj.f2974

How to write an abstract that will be accepted

2013· article· en· W1483046377 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Higgins, Maeve Eogan, Keelin O’Donoghue, Nóirín Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers do not always appreciate the importance of producing a good abstract or understand the best way of writing one. Mary Higgins and colleagues share some of the lessons they have learnt as both researchers and reviewers of abstracts

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.493
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.493
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0080.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0220.017
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0160.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1510.201

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207