Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative writing has been found to lead to more productive writing processes and enhanced final products in terms of a richer vocabulary, more accurate grammar, and better organization. The present study expands on this research strand by exploring if different group writing processes affect the quality of wiki texts composed by groups of intermediate German L2 learners. Defining true collaborative writing as involving both a balanced workload and a joint responsibility for the product from all group members, it measured collaboration in two ways. Results indicate that most of the 19 groups in this study had a somewhat unbalanced workload with wide variability in editing group members’ contributions. Although the wiki texts differed greatly with regard to quantitative measures of length, accuracy and cohesion, no correlation was found in terms of workload or co-ownership. While holistic ratings of the texts concerning accuracy and cohesion seemed at times incongruent with the analytic measures, the raters’ comments provided a perspective that captured facets and nuances of a text that the analytic indicators did not.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it