MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158420135 · doi:10.1007/s40037-021-00668-7

Collaborative writing: Strategies and activities for writing productively together

2021· editorial· en· W3158420135 on OpenAlexaff
Lorelei Lingard

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Medical Education · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollaborative writingMedical educationComputer scienceMathematics educationData sciencePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

None

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0300.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.407 · 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
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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Medical EducationSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207