MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170565256 · doi:10.3145/epi.2021.may.14

Letter. New Google Scholar section with information on funded publications

2021· article· en· W3170565256 on OpenAlexfundno aff
B. Elango, Lutz Bornmann

Bibliographic record

VenueEl Profesional de la Informacion · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Geological SurveyDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaHealth Research Council of New ZealandUK Research and InnovationNational Institutes of HealthVetenskapsrådetCHDI FoundationAutism Speaks
KeywordsSection (typography)Library scienceWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePublic accessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, Google Scholar added a new section to the Google Scholar Author Profiles called “Public Access”, with information on funded (and unfunded) publications. This Letter to the editor discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the new section.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0330.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.016

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueEl Profesional de la InformacionSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207