Citing the taxonomic literature: what a difference a year makes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We all know that the world of scientific publishing has \nchanged profoundly since the onset of the digital revolution. \nOne relatively new development is the rapid publication \nof scientific papers online, frequently before they are \ncopyedited and typeset, and sometimes even before being \npeer reviewed (Sheldon 2018). Climate of the Past is one \nsuch journal that posts manuscripts online before they \nhave been refereed. The purpose of doing this is to allow \nonline discussion of a manuscript while it is under review in \nthe conventional sense. Manuscripts may thus benefit \nfrom any useful feedback from readers as well as from the \nformal reviews. \nThe above developments mean that scientific articles \nmay appear online long before being assigned to a \nparticular volume/issue and with final page numbers. Such \nassignments commonly occur in the following year when the \ncomplete volumes or issues of a journal appear in print and/ \nor digitally. Before the digital revolution, authors had to wait \nperhaps 12 months or more between acceptance and final \npublication. Today, just a week or two may elapse before the \ntypescript of an accepted manuscript is available online. In \nmost respects this revolution is good, especially now that \nmany authors aim for metricised output targets. However, \nsuch early publication of a paper may cause complications \nregarding its referencing, but in most cases this does not \nreally matter so long as the reference in a bibliography leads \nto the retrieval of the correct publication. For example, the \npaper cited below as Pound and Riding (2015) was initially \nissued online in 2015, prior to assignment to a volume of \nthe Journal of the Geological Society published in 2016. \nBefore 2016 it would have also been cited as Pound and \nRiding (2015) but that situation would not have lasted for \nlong and would have affected very few, if any, citations. \nElectronic publication of a paper prior to assignment of \nthe volume number and final pagination can be confusing, \nbut in most cases problems are limited to referencing. \nHowever, it has critical implications for papers with biological \nsystematics, especially those with new nomenclatural \nproposals (new taxa, combinations, substitute names, etc. – \nso-called nomenclatural novelties). Until recently, codes of \nnomenclature in botany and zoology required nomenclatural \nnovelties to be published in paper format in publicly \ndistributed articles. However, the most recent codes permit \nthe publication of nomenclatural novelties in a hybrid (online \nand paper) journal or even in a purely electronic periodical \n(but not in an online database or catalogue).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it