MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016667276 · doi:10.1145/2492007.2492023

Best practices on the move

2013· article· en· W2016667276 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Nicolaou

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the ACM · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile and Web Applications
Canadian institutionsGoogle (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBest practiceWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Which practices should be modified or avoided altogether by developers for the mobile Web?

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0250.021
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0120.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.018

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the ACMSame topicMobile and Web ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207