MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165465543 · doi:10.1111/inr.12689

International Nurses Day 2021 literary contribution: At a fork in the research journey: a poem in resistance to publishing in highly ranked journals

2021· article· en· W3165465543 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Su‐Yeon Park

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Nursing Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublish or perishPublishingPoetryPublicationResistance (ecology)Medical journalSociologyPolitical scienceLiteraturePsychologyMedia studiesMedicineLawArtFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In celebration of International Nurses Day 2021 and in critique of scholars who are driven to publish as many articles as possible in highly ranked journals, a short poem is offered here. This poem has resonance for the scholarly world in terms of questioning why we keep trying to be seen as successful scholars in the eyes of others employing a publish or perish mentality rather than pursuing the true purpose of our scholarly existence. The author asks nurses, 'Why are you doing science'?

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Nursing ReviewSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207