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

End User Tools for Evaluating Scholarly Content

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

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for users to locate the most recent version of a document or to ascertain if the document has had any updates or even been retracted.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.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.040

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207