MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039520432 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.120597

A solution to inappropriate self-citation via peer review

2012· article· en· W2039520432 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brett D. Thombs, Ilya Razykov

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationMinor (academic)Computer sciencePeer reviewInformation retrievalData scienceWorld Wide WebQuality (philosophy)MedicineBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On two occasions recently, peer reviewers of manuscripts we submitted for possible publication recommended manuscript revisions that included citations to minor, tangentially related articles, including some of poor quality. In both cases, the recommended citations were all for publications from a

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)0.201
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.576
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2010.576
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.016

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207