Review of Research Evaluation, Volumes 13(3), 14(1), and 14(2)
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
Research Evaluation is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal about the “methods, experiences and lessons for ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of single proposals through performances” (Research Evaluation, 2005). Given the considerable interest in evaluating research, as demonstrated by the 21 sessions sponsored by the American Evaluation Association (AEA) Research, Technology, and Development Evaluation Topical Interest Group (TIG) at the recent 2005 American Evaluation Association/ Canadian Evaluation Society jointly-sponsored conference, the journal certainly deserves coverage in the pages of JMDE. This review covers the three most recent issues of Research Evaluation (Volume 13(3), 2004; Volume 14(1), 2005; and Volume 14(2), 2005).
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 | 0.140 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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