MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312367745 · doi:10.1332/174426413x662699

Are indicators of faculty members’ credibility associated with how often they present research evidence to public or partly government-owned organisations? A cross-sectional survey

2014· article· en· W2312367745 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mathieu Ouimet, Pierre‐Olivier Bédard, Grégory Léon, Christian Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityGovernment (linguistics)Empirical evidenceTest (biology)Regression analysisEmpirical researchSurvey data collectionSource credibilityPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides an empirical test of the assumption that the credibility of the messenger is one of the factors that influence knowledge mobilisation among policy makers. This general hypothesis was tested using a database of 321 social scientists from the province of Quebec that combines survey and bibliometric data. A regression model was used to study the association between indicators of faculty members’ credibility and the number of times they have presented research evidence to public or partly government-owned organisations over an 18-month period. Overall, empirical results provide new evidence supporting the credibility hypothesis.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.218
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.218
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.382
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.109 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence & PolicySame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207