MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123609639 · doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1116

On the Mark? Responses to a Sting

2013· article· en· W2123609639 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Buckland, Martin Paul Eve, Graham Steel, Jennifer L. Gardy, Dorothea Salo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)StingComputer scienceHistoryPhilosophyEpistemologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It all seems very simple. A researcher writes up her findings to share them with her community. The findings are sent to a journal where the editor sends the manuscript out to peers to read. The reviewers comment and return the manuscript to the editor. The editor either asks the researcher to address the comments, or rejects the manuscript based on the reviews. The researcher sends their final manuscript to the editor, who in turn works with the publisher to ensure dissemination. Done.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0230.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.012

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Librarianship and Scholarly CommunicationSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207