MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972047819 · doi:10.1188/19.onf.517-518

Social Media and Scholarly Publication: What Is the Connection?

2019· editorial· en· W2972047819 on OpenAlex

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

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaPoliticsMedicinePersonal accountMedia studiesConnection (principal bundle)Public relationsAdvertisingSociologyLawLiteraturePolitical scienceBusinessNarrativeArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent post on The Scholarly Kitchen website got me thinking about the role of social media in my professional life. I have young adult children who keep me in the loop about social trends to some extent. They instructed me to join Facebook many years ago and, since then, I have remembered friends' and relatives' birthdays with much greater success. I joined Twitter and, for a time, had a personal as well as professional account. It was difficult to keep those separate, and I eventually stopped tweeting on the personal account. I only use my professional one now and with greater circumspect (no politics and fewer complaints about hotels and airlines). I have an Instagram account where I follow many chefs, winemakers, and artists, and I enjoy the beautiful images that they post.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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