MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2756106382 · doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0939-8

Barriers and Solutions to Conducting Large International, Interdisciplinary Research Projects

2017· article· en· W2756106382 on OpenAlexaff
Erin C. Pischke, Jessie L. Knowlton, Colin C. Phifer, Jose Gutiérrez López, Tamara Propato, Amarella Eastmond, Tatiana Souza, Mark Kuhlberg, Valentin Picasso Risso, Santiago R. Verón, Carlos A. García, Marta Chiappe, Kathleen E. Halvorsen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersInter-American Institute for Global Change ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWork (physics)TeamworkFoundation (evidence)Nature ConservationSociologyEngineering ethicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsEngineeringEcology

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.

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)0.185
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.301
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1850.301
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0260.012
Open science0.0060.020
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.292
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ManagementSame topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207