MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3011919300 · doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2020.01.009

Les responsabilités de la révision par des pairs

2020· editorial· fr· W3011919300 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Togas Tulandi, Kristen Hines

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesLibrary scienceArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La mesure dans laquelle la révision par des pairs peut améliorer la qualité d'un manuscrit a fait l'objet de nombreux débats, mais l'importance que cette étape revêt en édition savante est incontestable. L'International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) décrit la révision par des pairs comme un prolongement important de la démarche scientifique1, tandis que le Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) affirme que la révision par des pairs sous toutes ses formes joue un rôle important dans le maintien de l'intégrité des documents savants2.

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)0.161
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3660.241

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada→Same topicHealth and Medical Research Impacts→French-language works237,207→