MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810903310 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.00071

GOTO Rankings Considered Helpful

2018· preprint· en· W2810903310 on OpenAlexaff
Emery D. Berger, Stephen M. Blackburn, Carla E. Brodley, H. V. Jagadish, Kathryn S. McKinley, Mário A. Nascimento, Minjeong Shin, Lexing Xie

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCompetitive and Knowledge Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGotoPosition (finance)PsychologyComputer scienceData scienceSociologyPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rankings are a fact of life. Whether or not one likes them, they exist and are influential. Within academia, and in computer science in particular, rankings not only capture our attention but also widely influence people who have a limited understanding of computing science research, including prospective students, university administrators, and policy-makers. In short, rankings matter. This position paper advocates for the adoption of "GOTO rankings": rankings that use Good data, are Open, Transparent, and Objective, and the rejection of rankings that do not meet these criteria.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.014
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0250.013
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0900.031

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.091 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicCompetitive and Knowledge IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207