MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002217656 · doi:10.1111/bre.12278

Basin Research outstanding reviewers 2018–19

2020· article· en· W3002217656 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBasin Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeLibrary sciencePublishingCertificateHistorySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineLawOphthalmologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every year hundreds of individuals contribute their time and expertise to help Basin Research maintain unbiased, professional, independent and expert-driven peer review of all manuscripts that are eventually published in our journal. The reviewers receive no remuneration, and we are indebted and extremely grateful to our reviewers for their service to this journal, and to the scientific community. Our reviewers are as diverse as they are excellent, representing countries and institutions across the globe, and spanning career stages from PhD students to Professors Emeriti/Emerita. We would like to celebrate some of the individuals who contributed with expert reviews for Basin Research in the past year, by publishing a list of outstanding reviewers that we want to acknowledge and recognize as such. These reviewers will also receive a certificate to give recognition for their significant contributions. Although it is not possible to list everyone, we would like to express our sincere thanks to all reviewers who contributed with reviews of manuscripts for Basin Research in the past year. We would also like to extend a special thanks to all early-career researchers who reviewed for Basin Research in the past year; we are particularly impressed with the quality and rigor you bring to the Basin Research peer-review process. List of outstanding reviewers 2018-2019: Gary Axen New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Mexico Thomas Berg Kristensen Equinor ASA, Norway Anne Bernhardt Freie Universität Berlin, Germany Johan Claringbould Tokyo Daigaku Jishin Kenkyujo, Japan Grace Cosgrove University of Leeds, UK Sian Evans Imperial College London, UK Mary Ford University of Lorraine, Nancy, France Derya Gürer University of Queensland, Australia Elizabeth Hajek Penn State University, USA David Hodgson University of Leeds, UK Dale Issler Natural Resources Canada, Alberta, Canada Lara Kalnins University of Edinburgh, UK Carolyn Lampe ucon Geoconsulting, Koeln, Germany Francisco Lobo CSIC, Granada, Spain Yitzaq Makovsky University of Haifa, Israel Michael McGlue University of Kentucky, USA Ivar Midtkandal University of Oslo, Norway Lorena Moscardelli University of Texas, USA Thomas Phillips University of Durham, UK Leonardo Muniz Pichel Imperial College London, UK Clara Rodriguez Schlumberger, Western Geco, USA Lydia Staisch USGS, California, USA Zoltan Sylvester University of Texas, USA Torbjorn Tornqvist Tulane University, USA Fabio Trincardi Istituto di Scienze Marine Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy Sean Willett ETH Zürich, Switzerland Kirstie Wright Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.015

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.148 · 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