MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088242977 · doi:10.29173/cjen45

Editorial: The Importance of Peer Review

2020· editorial· en· W3088242977 on OpenAlex
Heather McLellan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Nursing · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject matterPeer reviewSubject (documents)Work (physics)Field (mathematics)Double blindSubject-matter expertEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePsychologyMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicineLibrary scienceAlternative medicineEngineeringPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peer review is the evaluation of written work by subject matter experts in the same field. It is quality assurance for scientific, academic and professional work ensuring that it is relevant for the journal audience, significant to the discipline, and accurate to the best knowledge of the reviewers and editors. Peer review can come in many forms including open review, single-blind, double-blind and even triple-blind.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.256 · 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