MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122818560 · doi:10.1002/fsh.10579

Writing and Publishing Scientific Book Reviews as a Teaching Tool in Fisheries

2021· article· en· W3122818560 on OpenAlexaff
Francis Juanes

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingFisheryScientific publishingLibrary scienceComputer scienceBiologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Writing and publishing fisheries book reviews serves as a useful teaching tool that can provide a variety of skills, including critical thinking, scientific writing, collaboration, and the publication process. Here, I describe the process my students and I have followed over the last 25 years in publishing 19 student-oriented book reviews, and highlight some of the lessons learned.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.009

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheriesSame topicConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationFrench-language works237,207