MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022447455 · doi:10.3138/jsp.51.3.03

Paper Online Rating Platforms An Emerging Publishing System

2020· article· en· W3022447455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lingfeng Wang, Biqun Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingRating systemComputer scienceElectronic publishingWorld Wide WebData scienceThe InternetPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scholarly journals, the electronic posting platform arXiv, and the open-access publishing platform F1000Research are three paper publishing systems currently available to researchers. These three systems all have their shortcomings. We introduce another option, a Paper Online Rating Platform (PORP), where all submissions are rated and none rejected. PORP has obvious advantages, we argue, over the other three paper publishing systems. We define PORP, describe its advantages, and discuss some challenges for its future development.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0180.023
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.036

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.126 · 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
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207