MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017899036 · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008

Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors

2007· article· en· W2017899036 on OpenAlexaff
Amber E Budden, Tom Tregenza, Lonnie W. Aarssen, Julia Koricheva, Roosa Leimu, Christopher J. Lortie

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Ecology & Evolution · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDouble blindRepresentation (politics)EcologyIdentity (music)Behavioral ecologyPsychologySociologyBiologyMedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicineLawPathologyPhilosophyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.271
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.553
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2710.553
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0200.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0120.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.007

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 head0.592
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.019 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations563
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Ecology & EvolutionSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207