MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900535746 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006508

Ten simple rules for collaboratively writing a multi-authored paper

2018· editorial· en· W2900535746 on OpenAlexafffund
Marieke A. Frassl, David P. Hamilton, Blaize A. Denfeld, Elvira de Eyto, Stephanie E. Hampton, Philipp S. Keller, Sapna Sharma, Abigail S. L. Lewis, Gesa A. Weyhenmeyer, Catherine M. O’Reilly, Mary E. Lofton, Núria Catalán

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftVetenskapsrådetGlobal Lake Ecological Observatory Network
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceData scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer reviewed

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)0.173
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.312
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1730.312
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.025
Scholarly communication0.0260.015
Open science0.0080.013
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.012

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 head0.479
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.099 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations56
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207