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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acknowledgements are the one place on public record where scholarly editors receive credit for their contributions to books. Some have argued that the tradition of editorial invisibility is self-defeating; one editor has proposed that editors receive official recognition from the publisher in a book's front matter, irrespective of author acknowledgement. As a preliminary to entertaining such a proposal, this article surveys current practices by authors in a content analysis of acknowledgements sampled from monographs recently published by university presses. The analysis found that editors were often characterized as manuscript shepherds having a dual role: ally to the author and expeditor of production. Speaking for scholarly editors, I oppose making editor recognition a publishing standard, as this might suggest that authors need not credit editors on their own. The cost of such omission would be high, as editors would be left out of the back story to their books.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.178 | 0.305 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it