MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526057431 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22311

How do you write and present research well? 1 — admit that you did it

2015· article· en· W1526057431 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Gregory S. Patience, Daria C. Boffito, Paul A. Patience

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLinguisticsPersonal pronounExpression (computer science)PsychologyComputer sciencePhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many researchers avoid expressing sentences with personal pronouns such as I, you, we. Rather, they resort to the passive tense and add clutter with words and expressions like It should be noted that or It is suggested that. The former expression appears more than 2 100 000 times in Google Scholar[1] and the latter over 710 000 times. In the 500 most‐cited articles and letters from Science in 2013 and the top 500 from Nature, how many times does we or our appear?[2,3] more than 2000 (2004) between 1000 and 2000 between 500 and 1000 between 250 and 500 less than 250

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
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 score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.046

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207