MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990468116 · doi:10.22148/16.051

Annotation Guideline No. 1: Narrative Boundaries Annotation Guide

2019· article· en· W2990468116 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua D. Eisenberg, Mark A. Finlayson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Analytics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeAnnotationNatural (archaeology)Cover (algebra)Test (biology)Computer scienceWorld Wide WebHistoryLiteratureArtificial intelligenceEngineeringArtBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Narratives and stories are found all over the world, in every culture, and they are used by every person every day. For computers to communicate with people in a natural and respectful manner, they need to understand stories. Unfortunately, computational understanding of stories is currently in its early stages: computers cannot yet identify even basic characteristics of a narrative, such as where it begins and ends. To train and test a computer’s ability to identify the beginnings and endings of narratives (what we call here narrative boundaries) we are collecting human judgments.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1570.147

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cultural AnalyticsSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207