MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038981544 · doi:10.7554/elife.60438

Ways to increase equity, diversity and inclusion

2020· article· en· W3038981544 on OpenAlexaff
Devang Mehta, Yaw Bediako, Charlotte M. de Winde, Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Florencia Fernández-Chiappe, Vinodh Ilangovan, Carolina Paz Quezada, Julia Riley, Shyam M. Saladi, Andy Tay, Tracey L. Weissgerber

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Diversity (politics)Inclusion (mineral)RacismPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologySocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eLife Early-Career Advisory Group (ECAG), an international group of early-career researchers committed to improving research culture, calls for radical changes at eLife and other journals to address racism in the scientific community and to make science more diverse and inclusive.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0210.033
Open science0.0040.050
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.005

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 head0.786
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainIncentives
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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207