MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Peer review declaration

2021· article· en· W4205635109 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Studies and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationLibrary sciencePublishingPresentation (obstetrics)OriginalityCLARITYPeer reviewPolitical scienceMedicineComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: The submission process had no a software system. Call-for-paper was placed on the Conference web page (https://pasd-conf.ru/), the papers were submitted via e-mail. The reviews were asked and received via e-mails of Editors. • Number of submissions received: 68 • Number of submissions sent for review: 61 • Number of submissions accepted: 48 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 71% • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.6 • Total number of reviewers involved: 866 • Any additional info on review process: The consideration of the submitted manuscript included independent peer review process. We invited the reviewers from Russia, France, China, Turkestan, Iran, India, Ukraine, Georgia, Denmark, Slovak Republic, Germany, Sudan, Australia, Italy, Switzerland, USA, Kenya, Thailand, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Sweden, Canada, Turkey, and Ghana. Reviewers gave their view and remarks for each paper. All reviewers were asked to provide within three weeks a detailed review with comments for authors and editors and evaluate paper taking into account Quality Criteria (originality motivation, repetition, and length of the paper), Presentation Criteria (title, abstract, methods, diagrams, figures, tables, and conclusion), and Technical Criteria (scientific merit, clarity of expression, communication of ideas, readability and discussion of concepts, and English). • Contact person for queries: Dr. Anna Godymchuk, Tobolsk Complex Scientific Station, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Science, Tobolsk, Russian Federation, godymchuk@tpu.ru Dr. Anton Stepanov, Chuvash State Agricultural Academy, Cheboksary, Russian Federation For.Anton_step@edu.academy21.ru

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.448
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.448
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0290.012
Open science0.0100.010
Research integrity0.0120.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1500.146

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.172 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicGeological Studies and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207