MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936767620 · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.02.012

Predatory Journals and Junk Meetings

2019· editorial· en· W2936767620 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Togas Tulandi, Jacques Balayla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePublishingPraiseTheme (computing)Medical educationPublic relationsLibrary scienceLawPsychologyWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As physicians and academics, every day we receive many electronic invitations to submit a research manuscript or to sit on an editorial board of some dubious journal. Similarly, we often get invitations to lecture or to attend meetings of questionable quality, often hosted by unknown associations. The letters are flattering, and the correspondences invariably praise previous publications in a particular field. More often than not, the letter will state that the journal requesting your work is an open-access journal.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0390.020
Open science0.0040.014
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2440.193

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207