MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001859167 · doi:10.31579/2690-1919/006

Policy Response to the Recent Analysis of the Nature of Ethical Publishing Issues As Identified By the Ottawa Group in Nature

2019· article· en· W3001859167 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yosemite Sam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Research and Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change Communication and Perception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingStatement (logic)Set (abstract data type)Political scienceGroup (periodic table)Library scienceSociologyPublic relationsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent Delphinic policy analysis published in Nature, from the Ottawa group that gathered to define predatory journals and practices, has brought new focus to bear on this enduring problem. (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y) In response, we convened a group (N=2) at the International House of Policy to consider how this set of definitions reflects our own experience. The resulting IHOP Statement is still being formally formulated, but preliminary findings are as follows. The undersigned claim particular knowledge of such journalistic practices because, epistemologically speaking, they are where we live.

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 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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
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 head0.403
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.231 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Research and ReportsSame topicClimate Change Communication and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207