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

Editorial: The Importance of Peer Review

2020· editorial· en· W3088242977 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Heather McLellan

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.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0180.008
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0140.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.044

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency NursingSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207