MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985242674 · doi:10.15185/izawol.467

Transparency in empirical economic research

2019· article· en· W2985242674 on OpenAlexaff
Cristina Blanco-Perez, Abel Brodeur

Bibliographic record

VenueIZA World of Labor · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Analysis with R
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)AccountingBusinessComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open science and research transparency can lead to improved credibility within empirical economic research, which represents a key input in economic policy design. Nonetheless, there remain concerns surrounding the costs associated with open science and the lack of incentives for transparent research. Despite these concerns, the potential benefits justify the efforts. Researchers and policymakers should thus pay close attention to recent developments in open research that may alleviate some of the main drawbacks, such as encouraging registered reports and editorial policies to promote transparent practices.

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)0.396
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.714
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3960.714
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0070.047
Scholarly communication0.0330.030
Open science0.0040.016
Research integrity0.0190.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.325 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainReproducibility
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIZA World of LaborSame topicData Analysis with RFrench-language works237,207