MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2928434645 · doi:10.1186/s13229-018-0249-x

Rigor in science and science reporting: updated guidelines for submissions to Molecular Autism

2019· editorial· en· W2928434645 on OpenAlex
Joseph D. Buxbaum, Simon Baron‐Cohen, Evdokia Anagnostou, Chris Ashwin, Catalina Betancur, Bhismadev Chakrabarti, Jacqueline N. Crawley, Rosa A. Hoekstra, Patrick R. Hof, Meng‐Chuan Lai, Michael Lombardo, Cynthia M. Schumann

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Autism · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutismRigourAutism spectrum disorderOpen scienceNeuropsychologyPsychologyMEDLINEData scienceMedicineMedical educationEngineering ethicsPsychiatryComputer sciencePolitical scienceCognitionEngineeringEpistemologyPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There was some controversial press reporting of an article published in Molecular Autism by Anwar et al. In addition, at least two organizations dedicated to scientific accuracy in reporting have commented on this article, including www.sciencemediacentre.org and www.healthnewsreview.org. While the authors expressed some of the caveats of the study in their article, the subsequent reporting in the press and non-specialist community omitted critical caveats and we feel compelled to alter our guidelines to better address such issues.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.219 · 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