MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899177940 · doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.236

Datasets from a research project examining the role of politics in social psychological research

2018· article· en· W2899177940 on OpenAlexaff
Domenico Viganola, Orly Eitan, Yoel Inbar, Anna Dreber, Magnus Johannesson, Thomas Pfeiffer, Stefan Thau, Eric Luis Uhlmann

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMarsden FundKnut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
KeywordsPoliticsLeverage (statistics)Relevance (law)Social researchEmpirical researchPerceptionPsychologyPsychological researchPublication biasTest (biology)Social scienceSocial psychologyPolitical scienceData scienceSociologyMEDLINEEpistemologyComputer scienceLawEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present four datasets from a project examining the role of politics in social psychological research. These include thousands of independent raters who coded scientific abstracts for political relevance and for whether conservatives or liberals were treated as targets of explanation and characterized in a negative light. Further included are predictions about the empirical results by scientists participating in a forecasting survey, and coded publication outcomes for unpublished research projects varying in political overtones. Future researchers can leverage this corpus to test further hypotheses regarding political values and scientific research, perceptions of political bias, publication histories, and forecasting accuracy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.587
GPT teacher head0.576
Teacher spread0.011 · 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
GenreDataset

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 venueScientific DataSame topicAcademic Freedom and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207