MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018464266 · doi:10.5703/1288284314959

End User Tools for Evaluating Scholarly Content

2012· article· en· W2018464266 on OpenAlex
Carol Anne Meyer

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNews aggregatorComputer scienceSession (web analytics)World Wide WebSubject (documents)Digital contentService (business)Content (measure theory)Digital libraryMultimediaInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of multiple versions of scholarly content (from author websites, institutional repositories, government archives, subject-specific digital libraries, aggregator collections and publisher websites) make it difficult for users to locate the most recent version of a document or to ascertain if the document has had any updates or even been retracted. This session describes tools for end users to evaluate the content they come across to make sure they are citing the most authoritative version of the content available. The reader will learn about the CrossMark version of record service and the importance of educating users about how to locate current information.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.323
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.059 · 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