MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176215849 · doi:10.1177/05390184211025204

‘Science’ has always been evaluated. . . and will always be

2021· article· en· W3176215849 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science Information · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Scale (ratio)Carry (investment)Political scienceComputer scienceSociologyGeographyBusinessCartographyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Science has always been evaluated and will always be. The reasons justifying evaluations and the methods used to carry them have varied over time in relation to the many transformations of the sciences over the last fifty years. The uses of bibliometric methods are not limited to ‘evaluations’ of scientists and their institutions as they also provide a unique way to map global trends. One cannot stop evaluating science, but one can use the right tools at the right scale (individuals, institutions, countries) to better understand the dynamic of scientific change.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.025
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.212 · 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