Reproducible manuscript preparation with RMarkdown application to JMSACL and other Elsevier Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With the rising complexity of modern multimarker analytical techniques and notable scientific publication retractions required for erroneous statistical analysis, there is increasing awareness of the importance of research transparency and reproducibility. The development of mature open-source tools for literate programming in multiple langauge paradigms has made fully-reproducible authorship possible. OBJECTIVES: We describe the procedure for manuscript preparation using RMarkdown and the R statistical programming language with application to JMSACL or any other Elsevier journal. METHODS: An instructional manuscript has been prepared in the RMarkdown markup language with stepwise directions on preparing sections, subsections, lists, tables, figures and reference management in an entirely reproducible format. RESULTS: From RMarkdown code, a submission-ready PDF is generated and JMSACL-compatible LaTeX code is generated. These can be uploaded to the Editorial Manager. CONCLUSION: A completely reproducible manuscript preparation pipeline using the R and RMarkdown is described.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.107 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".