MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025385188 · doi:10.1016/s2666-5247(20)30028-8

Reproducibility in science: important or incremental?

2020· article· en· W3025385188 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robyn S. Lee, William P. Hanage

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Microbe · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproducibilityDeclarationPublicationMedicinePolitical scienceStatisticsLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, a survey1 was published in Nature in which more than 50% of researchers agreed that there was a substantial reproducibility crisis in science. Nearly half of the researchers surveyed cited the pressure to publish as a major contributor to this crisis.1 Publishing studies of reproducibility has been notoriously difficult, as highlighted by our own recent experience.

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)0.588
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.859
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5880.859
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0110.061
Scholarly communication0.0510.059
Open science0.0090.029
Research integrity0.0270.054
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet MicrobeSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207