MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316012485 · doi:10.1097/bpb.0b013e32834410e9

Skeptical thinking series

2011· article· en· W2316012485 on OpenAlexaff
Darin Davidson, Kishore Mulpuri, Richard Mathias

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkepticismHonestyFalsifiabilityMedicineEpistemologySeries (stratigraphy)Logical reasoningComponent (thermodynamics)PsychologySocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to introduce the concept of skeptical thinking to evaluate a claim using the six component (Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency) FiLCHeRS method. These six rules were used to assess whether claims should be accepted or rejected. As this is an introductory study, there are no concrete results to report, although the conclusion is that the method of skeptical thinking using the FiLCHeRS method is a suitable and logical approach to evaluate a claim.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics BSame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismFrench-language works237,207