MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1879685106

Why We Should All Edit Wikipedia

2011· article· en· W1879685106 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Heilman

Bibliographic record

VenueUBC Faculty of Medicine medical journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEncyclopediaWorld Wide WebHome pageMedicineInternet privacyMedical educationThe InternetComputer scienceLibrary science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wikipedia, as most are aware, is the free online encyclopedia that covers nearly everything. Almost anyone can edit it, and nearly everybody reads it. As of June 2011, it had over 3.6 million articles in the English language of which approximately 23,000 pertained to the practice of medicine, and 6,700 discussed aspects of pharmacology. The medical pages in a given month receive between 150 and 200 million page views1 while the pharmacology content receives approximately 35 million.2 For the entire encyclopedia, 40,000 people make more than five edits each month,3 though a much smaller number of editors are actively involved with medicine. However, users involved with WikiProject Medicine are a dedicated group of volunteer physicians, students, and non-professionals with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and current health information.4

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUBC Faculty of Medicine medical journalSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207