MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054184229 · doi:10.1080/00222895.2012.746560

On Mechanisms, Methods, and Measures: A Response to Guagnano, Rusconi, and Umiltà

2013· article· en· W2054184229 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Timothy N. Welsh, Dovin Kiernan, Heather F. Neyedli, Matthew Ray, Jay Pratt, Daniel J. Weeks

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Motor Behavior · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and History of Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Toronto
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScholarshipChristian ministryResearch councilLibrary scienceGraduate studentsGraduate researchEngineering researchSociologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogyComputer scienceLawPhilosophyGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guagnano, Rusconi, and Umiltà (2013) commented on our main article (Welsh et al., 2013) in which we reported and discussed an attempted reproduction of one key experiment from their earlier work (E...

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)0.142
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.314
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1420.314
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0140.034
Scholarly communication0.0140.024
Open science0.0090.014
Research integrity0.0250.063
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Motor BehaviorSame topicPhilosophy and History of ScienceFrench-language works237,207