MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770082067

Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems From The Tyranny of Peer Review

2017· article· en· W2770082067 on OpenAlexaff
Cecil Eng Huang Chua, Jason Bennett Thatcher, Fred Niederman, Yolande E. Chan, Elizabeth Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The panel will identify problems with the peer review system, not only in terms of its administration, but also in terms of the biases this institution of knowledge evaluation has on scientific thought. Issues raised will include incentive structures, the peer review class divide, and the general poor efficacy of peer review. The panel will also present alternatives to peer review and discuss their relative merits.

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)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.324
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.324
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.014
Scholarly communication0.0290.024
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0110.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.023

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207