MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020197475 · doi:10.1177/1356389020911060

Evaluators in the Anthropocene

2020· article· en· W3020197475 on OpenAlex
Astrid Brousselle, J. Bradley McDavid

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvaluation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropoceneBiosphereEnvironmental ethicsAction (physics)State (computer science)Natural (archaeology)Call to actionEarth system scienceWork (physics)Non-humanEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEcologyHistoryGeographyArchaeologyEnvironmental scienceBusinessLawComputer scienceBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last century, human-led activities have drastically altered natural systems. The environmental impacts of human activity are so deleterious to living species and our biosphere that geologists have named this new geological era the Anthropocene, from anthropos, human being. Responses to the Anthropocene era call for drastic changes in all domains of activity. As evaluators, we claim to work for social betterment. We have a responsibility to adapt our approaches and practices to respond to this environmental challenge. The aim of this article is to raise awareness on the need to develop new approaches for evaluators in the Anthropocene. We first describe what this state of urgency represents for humans, the international commitments to take action, the solutions that exist, and what responding to this environmental challenge means for our profession.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.471
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.118 · 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