MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126633874 · doi:10.1145/3437479.3437483

ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards Released

2021· article· en· W3126633874 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Ralph

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpirical researchComputer scienceTask (project management)Quality (philosophy)EngineeringSystems engineeringStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In October 2020, The ACM SIGSOFT Paper and Peer Review Quality Task Force released its first empirical standards. An empirical standard is "a brief public document that communicates expectations for a specific kind of study (e.g. a questionnaire survey)" [1]. (All quotations below are from the Empirical Standards report [1] unless otherwise noted.)

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.296
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.296
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0220.024
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2220.189

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 head0.530
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.037 · 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
DomainReporting
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

Citations52
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering NotesSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207