MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170641156 · doi:10.7557/5.3041

ReView: a new approach to peer review, using WordPress

2014· article· en· W2170641156 on OpenAlexaff
Kaveh Bazargan

Bibliographic record

VenueSeptentrio Conference Series · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUpper River Valley Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlug-inWorld Wide WebComputer scienceUser interfaceInterface (matter)Peer-to-peerUser FriendlyHuman–computer interactionOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most requirements for a peer review system are a robust database, and comprehensive and secure control of user roles. Traditionally, peer review systems have been written from the ground up, requiring substantial manpower. We have found that using WordPress as the foundation of the system can result in a surprisingly flexible PR system with a user-friendly interface. By incorporating modified versions of available plugins, it is possible to incorporate unconventional functionality, e.g. a social network module.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0180.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0270.023
Open science0.0080.011
Research integrity0.0070.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1220.194

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeptentrio Conference SeriesSame topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207