MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532017116 · doi:10.1188/16.onf.675-676

Upon Further Review: Peer Process Vital to Publishing

2016· editorial· en· W2532017116 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Education, Practice, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingMedicineGlobeEditor in chiefPeer reviewMedical educationOphthalmologyManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer review is one of the hallmarks of professional publishing and one that I appreciate every day in my work as editor of this journal. I simply could not do this work without reviewers, and all of my editor colleagues across the globe would agree. I have been a reviewer for various journals for many years, and now, as editor of the Oncology Nursing Forum, I am even more aware of how important my reviews are for others. Just this morning, I reviewed a manuscript-for a noncompeting journal, of course-and as I entered my comments, I thought about what I, as editor, would find useful. .

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.425
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.425
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0370.013
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0170.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.061

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.360 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicNursing Education, Practice, and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207