MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254394995 · doi:10.3138/jsp.47.2.213

A Letter to the Editor: Comment, Reply, and Etiquette

2016· letter· en· W2254394995 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen K. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiquetteCivilityCitationEpistemologyComputer scienceLinguisticsLawLibrary sciencePhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comments and replies (Letters to the Editor) are short notes arising from a published paper. They can be contentious, even hostile. However, comments may correct an original error or reveal alternative interpretations, support a new contribution or extend its discussion. Comments and replies can add to academic discourse, but they may tread the edges of academic civility. In these days of publication metrics, a cynical author may just use them to improve their citation statistics.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0440.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.013

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207