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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report on a research study that entailed the rigorous evaluation of the quality of a large multidisciplinary sample of Wikipedia articles. The objective of the paper is to assess whether Wikipedia can be used and recommended as a credible reference or information tool. Design/methodology/approach The 106 randomly generated Wikipedia articles are analyzed and evaluated on specific criteria (completeness, accuracy, presentation, objectivity, and overall quality). Articles are reviewed from a broad range of subject areas: arts, popular culture, entertainment, geography, history, science, technology, people, entities, and politics. Findings The findings indicate that overall the articles are objective, clearly presented, reasonably accurate, and complete, although some are poorly written, contain unsubstantiated information, and/or provide shallow coverage of a topic. Research limitations/implications Further research on evaluating Wikipedia entries should include reviewing outward links to more accurately assess overall quality. Practical implications Wikipedia has a role as a reference and instruction tool. Originality/value This paper provides empirical data on a large number of articles on a wide range of disciplines in Wikipedia, supporting its use as an acceptable encyclopedia.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it