MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090451087 · doi:10.1111/ibi.12887

Evaluation and recommendations for greater accessibility of colour figures in ornithology

2020· article· en· W3090451087 on OpenAlex
Ingrid L. Pollet, Alexander L. Bond

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIbis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrnithologyWhite (mutation)Visual artsArtEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People who are colour‐blind or have some form of colour vision deficiency form an invisible minority and scientists should strive to be as inclusive as possible. We reviewed 2873 figures published in 2019 from 1031 scientific papers in 27 ornithological journals to determine those that were colour‐blind compatible, and those that were black‐and‐white printer friendly. About 26% of the published figures were in colour, and while most were colour‐blind compatible, only ~ 60% of them were black‐and‐white printer friendly. Ensuring figures in all forms of scientific communication can be interpreted by readers who are colour‐blind, and can be printed in black‐and‐white will improve the accessibility of ornithological research.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.030
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.836
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.175 · 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