Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific paper authorship is an important academic achievement for all research professionals. Being designated as an author of a paper has academic, research, social and financial implications. Signing of a manuscript as an author does confer credit but also transfers responsibility. While authors get credit for the published work, they must accept the public responsibility that goes with it. Over the past few years, there has been a rising trend in authorship abuses. The prevalent culture of "publish or perish" appears to be responsible for this. In an endeavor to ensure honest practice, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Vancouver Group, developed the criteria for authorship and said that "all persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship and all those who qualify should be listed." However, authorship irregularities continue to exist and are a cause of concern. Budding authors should be enlightened about concurrent problems in authorship, during their formative years and encouraged toward fair practices in publications.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it