Bibliographic record
Abstract
CPI invites potential book reviewers who will prepare one of two types of book reviews:A somewhat, long review between 1000-1200 words.A précis of approximately 500-750 words. Each reviewer will be instructed concerning the type of review expected, and given general CPI book review guidelines. Potential reviewers: If you wish to write a CPI Book Review, please send an email to CPI.Book.Review@gmail.com with the following letter of interest:Your name and academic affiliation.Your current land address (to which the book will be mailed).Your email address, telephone number &/or skype address.A professional biography which states: (i) your academic qualifications; (ii) current academic position; (iii) relevant information which includes: current academic &/or professional interests, previous scholarship, recent publications; (iv) reasons for wanting to write a book review.If possible, suggestions regarding, either recently published or, forthcoming books (in Canada and internationally) that you think are suitable and warrant review.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.586 | 0.644 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".