Time for our field to grow up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to centuries of physics and millennia of mathematics, the 50-year-history of computer science and information management research makes us the toddlers of the scientific community. Yet during our brief existence, we've revolutionized the world and, not content with that, gone on to build and study virtual worlds. We have justly taken pride in our accomplishments, and developed our own unique way of conducting research, unlike other scientific and engineering fields. But cracks have appeared in this edifice we have built. The conference system that served us so well for our first 50 years is falling apart. Our ever-increasing population competes ever more energetically for a finite set of resources. Other scientific and engineering disciplines still think that our field equates to programming, and look down on us. While we may also look down on them, it is undeniably true that high-energy physicists get many more research dollars per capita than we do, and our computer science colleagues wonder whether all the data management problems haven't already been solved. Other departments have started to teach courses that overlap our turf. Are we our own worst enemies? Why doesn't everyone understand how important our research is? Do we have to abandon the conference system? Must we become more like the stodgy old fields of science and engineering? Or can we find our own way?
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".