MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896552281 · doi:10.3390/publications6040041

Planning for Academic Publishing after Retirement

2018· article· en· W2896552281 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen K. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnticipation (artificial intelligence)PublishingPublicationResearch Assessment ExercisePublic relationsMandatory retirementPolitical scienceLabour economicsManagementSociologyBusinessEconomicsLawHigher educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many academics retire, yet continue to tread a well-worm research path. In contrast, retirement may also be a time for reinvention and changes in direction—place, name, institutional links, where to publish, and what to review. These changes may be by pursuing a more restricted research agenda, but in a way convenient or interesting to the retiree. In short, the anticipation is that research in retirement will be a lot of fun; may the retiree leave the angst to the professionals.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0290.023
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0140.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.053

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 head0.825
GPT teacher head0.656
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainIncentives
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublicationsSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207