MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905418571 · doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2981-6

An approach to conference selection and evaluation: advice to avoid “predatory” conferences

2018· article· en· W2905418571 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientometrics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConferences and Exhibitions Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hip and Knee ClinicUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationSelection (genetic algorithm)PsychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an ever increasing number of academic conferences being offered and a growing concern regarding the appearance of “predatory conferencing”, the optimal use of one’s “conference time” has become complicated. It is particularly important for medical students and residents, due to both limited time and resources, to choose conferences to achieve the most benefit for their academic careers, however little information is available to provide guidance. We gathered current practices and perceptions from a wide number of faculty and residents to provide insights into their decision making process for conference evaluation and selection. We surveyed using an online program (SurveyMonkey®) 150 faculty members and medical residents at University of Calgary requesting them to rank factors, which may be useful in their conference selection. We also evaluated both faculty and resident’s knowledge of and exposure to presumed “predatory” science. Responses were anonymized and collated. The most important factors in selecting a conference(s) for residents is being focused on their area of interest, having an opportunity to present work, having well known respected plenary speakers, networking potential and being recommended by colleagues. Residents placed more importance on cost, location and time of year of the conference than faculty. Faculty placed more emphasis on networking potential, sponsoring organization, obtaining continuing professional development credits and the likelihood that cutting edge research will be presented. Most faculty (71%) had received correspondence from presumed “predatory” publishers or conferences, however only 56% of residents had ever either heard of or had education about “predatory science”. Experienced faculty need to provide advice and mentorship to trainees on conference value. In the absence of any formal tool for assessing conference quality their proactive guidance remains critical for medical students and residents. There is a significant lack of awareness and education for both trainees and some faculty around “predatory” publications and conferencing making them particularly vulnerable to misusing time and resources. Improved knowledge, education and new metrics are required to safeguard the academic community in this new era of “predatory academia”.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.296 · 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