MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292880094 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22459

How do you write and present research well? 7—Cite to get cited

2016· article· en· W2292880094 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Gregory S. Patience, Christian Patience, Daria C. Boffito, Paul A. Patience, François Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Balance (ability)Library scienceComputer scienceHistoryPsychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We cite other researchers to recognize their contribution, educate, and establish the foundation of the research. References should balance recent breakthroughs with past contributions. Between 2011 and 2014, Nature published over 3200 articles and letters that referenced 113 000 papers. What is the average age of the references in these papers (the difference between the year Nature published the paper and the year the cited article was published)?[1] 4 6 10 12

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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.396
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.396
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0310.019
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0120.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.210

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 head0.341
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.122 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207