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

Evaluators in the Anthropocene

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

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.

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)0.201
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.247
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2010.247
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.022
Scholarly communication0.0190.015
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvaluationSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207