MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1801674572 · doi:10.22230/src.2012v3n2a77

Literary Evaluation in Online Communities of Writers and Readers

2012· article· en· W1801674572 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P. Boot

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationWork (physics)Quality (philosophy)Online communityPoetryWorld Wide WebPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceLiteratureSocial scienceArtEngineeringEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, there has been very little research into online writing communities, largely as a result of the perceived low quality of writing produced in these communities. This article examines literary evaluation within online writing communities. Specifically, the Dutch site Verhalensite, which publishes both poems and stories, is analyzed in an attempt to determine why one work may be rated more highly than another, and whether a work’s ratings create an enduring reputation for its author.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.163
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.163
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207