MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558428727 · doi:10.1002/2015je004810

Appreciation of Peer Reviewers for 2014

2015· article· en· W1558428727 on OpenAlexaff
David Baratoux, S. A. Hauck, S. Stanley, M. A. Wieczorek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Planets · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingIntellectQuality (philosophy)PsychologyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineeringEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientific publishing relies heavily on the process of peer review to ensure that the most well‐founded and clearly described science is communicated to our colleagues and beyond. Papers published in JGR Planets benefit from the time, effort, and talents of the reviewers who provide thoughtfully considered advice on each manuscript. This role is critical to the advancement of planetary science as these reviews lead to even clearer and higher‐quality papers. In 2014, papers submitted to JGR Planets were the beneficiaries of more than 520 reviews provided by 340 members of the planetary science community. To everyone who volunteers their time and intellect to peer reviewing, thank you for helping us share the best science possible.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research PlanetsSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207