MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087045128 · doi:10.33972/trr.55

Canadian Journal Anchored by Excellence: Review of Antigonish Review, Fall 2018

2020· article· en· W3087045128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lindsay Gerano

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Review Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Research and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellencePolitical scienceLibrary scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Antigonish Review reveals excellent poetry, fiction, book reviews and a single nonfiction essay in its Fall 2018 issue. Topics wide in range covered seemingly everything from health concerns to marital strife and more. Nearly half a century of publishing some of the best in Canadian prose, including Margaret Atwood, The Antigonish Review (TAR) carries vocabulary thick with glaciers and moraine, morass and Halifax, Adirondacks. More than half of the writers in its pages are Canadian or have close ties to Canada.

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 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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.004

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.340 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueThe Review ReviewSame topicMedical Research and PracticesFrench-language works237,207