MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1882541190 · doi:10.7189/jogh.03.020301

NEWS

2013· review· fr· W1882541190 on OpenAlex
Elizabeth Wager, Sabine Kleinert

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Health · 2013
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityUniversiti Teknologi MARAUniversity of MinnesotaUniversiti Putra MalaysiaLa Trobe UniversityYork University
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

eer-reviewed publication is a vital step in the research process and permits research findings to be communicated effectively to readers. The peer review process is designed to select work of relevance to particular audiences, to improve the quality of reporting, and thus increase its transparency (eg, allowing methods to be replicated) Although it is by no means perfect, there is some evidence that peer review performs these functions, or at least that the quality of articles tends to improve from submission to publication However, peer review cannot, by itself, prevent fraud or misconduct, although in some cases it may help detect them. The publication process is therefore based on a degree of trust in the honesty and intentions of authors, reviewers, and editors.

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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0080.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.348 · 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