MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946719927 · doi:10.18192/uojm.v9i1.3984

Why I Write For Academic Blogs

2019· article· en· W2946719927 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dilshan Pieris

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisseminationRepertoireComputer scienceWorld Wide WebInternet privacyPublic relationsMultimediaPolitical scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer-reviewed academic publications are largely viewed as the gold standard of sharing scholarly work and are what many students in university strive for. However, this traditional method is not without challenges, namely its slow turnaround time and limits to accessibility. In this article, I discuss my personal experiences with these barriers and how I was able to overcome them through academic blogging. All in all, I urge others in academia to consider including blogs in their repertoire for disseminating knowledge rather than aiming solely for peer-reviewed articles.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0190.016
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.034

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of MedicineSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207