MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094190128 · doi:10.1139/l07-027

Research quality, publications, and impact in civil engineering into the 21st century. Publish or perish, commercial versus open access, Internet versus libraries?

2007· article· en· W2094190128 on OpenAlex
Hubert Chanson

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb visibility and informetrics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublish or perishThe InternetPublishingQuality (philosophy)PublicationScholarshipPublic relationsDisseminationEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebLawTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A research project is only completed when it has been published and shared with the community. Referees and peer experts play an important role in controlling the research quality. While some new electronic tools provide further means of disseminating some research information, the quality and impact of the works remain linked with some thorough expert-review process and publication in international scientific journals and books; unethical publishing standards are not acceptable. The writer argues that the new electronic aids do not replace scholarship or critical thinking, although they have an impact on the working environment of civil engineers.Key words: research publications, quality, impact, peer reviews.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.259 · 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