MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145003928 · doi:10.17705/1jais.00088

If the Tree of IS Knowledge Falls in a Forest, Will Anyone Hear?: A Commentary on Grover et al.

2006· article· en· W2145003928 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Wade, Markus Biehl, Henry Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree (set theory)PsychologyMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Readers could be confused after reading our paper (Wade et al.) and the Grover et al. paper—both in this issue—one right after the other. Both papers examine a similar topic using a similar methodology on a similar dataset over a similar time period. Yet, we come to very different conclusions. Grover et al.’s conclusions are positive and its tone is congratulatory and upbeat. By contrast, our findings are negative, and the mood of our paper is humbling and critical. After reading Grover et al. you may feel like reaching for a glass of champagne, while after reading ours, you are more likely to reach for an aspirin!

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations16
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207