MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983051550 · doi:10.3138/jsp.43.1.52

The Scholarly Book Review in the Humanities

2011· article· en· W1983051550 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John W. East

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital humanitiesHumanitiesSociologyLibrary scienceHistoryMedia studiesArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the status of the book review as a form of scholarly publication in the humanities, looking at the role and characteristics of humanities book reviews and at who writes them and why. It examines evidence for the influence and impact of book reviews in the humanities and makes suggestions for the future of the scholarly book review in an online information environment.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0220.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.008

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207