MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607780492 · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9902-6

A New Science Publishing System for a Budding Science Publishing Crisis

2017· article· en· W2607780492 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Engineering Ethics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingPhilosophy of scienceScientific publishingScience policyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEpistemologyLawEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptScholarly communication
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.137
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.384
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1370.384
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0120.004
Scholarly communication0.2030.116
Open science0.0220.004
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.250 · 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