MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954773522 · doi:10.22230/src.2019v10n3a333

Play Smarter Not Harder: Developing Your Scholarly Meta

2019· article· en· W2954773522 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jason Helms

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWikis in Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrunchInteractivityComputer scienceProduction (economics)DebuggingGame DeveloperWorld Wide WebGame designMultimediaEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Publication medium is a choice that is always made and often forgotten. This game makes its arguments through interactivity and play, stressing that no medium is neutral and that medium choice shapes knowledge production. You play as a scholar submitting an article for publication: choosing your medium, researching, writing, and revising. Through successive plays the game develops the concepts of crunch and flow and explains how to develop a new scholarly meta (an e-sports term for strategy) that makes research more productive. The game takes roughly twenty minutes to win, unlocking a debug mode that makes its arguments more explicit.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicWikis in Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207