MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

2017· preprint· en· W2737988770 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Tennant, Jonathan M. Dugan, Daniel Graziotin, Damien Jacques, François Waldner, Daniel Mietchen, Yehia Elkhatib, Lauren Collister, Christina K. Pikas, Tom Crick, Paola Masuzzo, Anthony Caravaggi, Devin R. Berg, Kyle E. Niemeyer, Tony Ross‐Hellauer, Sara Mannheimer, Lillian Rigling, Daniel S. Katz, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Josmel Pacheco‐Mendoza, Nazeefa Fatima, Marta Poblet, Marios Isaakidis, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Sébastien Renaut, Christopher R. Madan, Lisa Matthias, Jesper Kjær, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Cameron Neylon, Sarah Kearns, Manojkumar Selvaraju, Julien Colomb

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversité de MontréalWestern University
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeImperial College LondonEuropean CommissionAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsOpen peer reviewPerspective (graphical)Plant biologyDisciplineEngineering ethicsPhysiologyNeuroscienceMedicineBiologySociologyEngineeringComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.168
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1680.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0130.135
Scholarly communication0.0400.030
Open science0.0080.016
Research integrity0.0210.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations257
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000Research→Same topicAcademic Publishing and Open Access→French-language works237,207→