MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897256221 · doi:10.3138/jsp.50.1.02

So What If It’s Not the <i>New York Times</i>: Why One University Press Seeks Book Reviews in Scholarly Journals

2018· article· en· W2897256221 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Levi Stahl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipMainstreamWork (physics)Scholarly communicationSociologyMedia studiesSocial sciencePublishingLibrary sciencePolitical scienceLawComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas book reviews in mainstream media outlets reach huge audiences, and their effects are obvious, the effects of reviews in scholarly outlets—and therefore the reason publishers do the work to land them—are harder to quantify. Yet scholarly book reviews play an important role in the long-term perception of a scholarly work and in the larger ecology of scholarship. This essay explains a bit about how scholarly book reviews work and why publishers believe they are valuable.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.3140.444
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.155 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207