Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ideas into Words: Mastering the craft of scientific writing. Elise Hancock. (Pp 151; $18.95.) Johns Hopkins University Press; ISBN 0-8018-7330-4. How to Write a Paper. 3rd Ed. Edited by George M Hall. (Pp 176; £16.95.) BMJ Books; ISBN 0-7279-1728-5. The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science. Scott L Montgomery. (Pp 227; $15.00.) University of Chicago Press; ISBN 0-226-53485. The Elements of Style. 4th Ed. William Strunk Jr, E B White. (Pp 105; $7.95.) Pearson Publishers; ISBN 0-205-313426. Authors are often ambivalent; editors love them; readers revel in them. These are reactions to journal papers that are a pleasure to read. Invariably, such papers are the result of authors who have taken extra steps (often many, many steps) to improve their writing. The time this entails accounts for the ambivalence of authors who may believe that their energies are better spent in other activities. But for all who want to please editors and readers the only path is to improve writing skills. There are several ways to accomplish this goal. One is to fly to Montreal for the fall term and take the course I give at McGill on scientific presentations. If four readers do so that will double the number of students who enrolled for this course in 2003. A second way is to hire …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".