Bibliographic record
Abstract
An academic publisher's role is to promote proper validation of scientific findings by supporting our editors in the peerreview process, certifying these findings by publishing them in our journals, and ensuring the distribution and archiving of these results in collaboration with multiple partners and in particular the academic libraries.In these activities we help build, protect, and conserve the integrity of the corpus of scientific knowledge, which spurs the thoughtful pursuit of human progress.As science publishers and as citizens, we formally state that we are committed to support public discourse based on corroborated facts and that we shall not adapt the editorial policies of our journals under any commercial or political pressure.We have and will continue to validate and distribute peer-reviewed data and content, whether consistent or not with assumed truths.Together with our partners in the library community we have and will ensure wide access to the ever expanding scientific corpus, to constructively contribute to the public debate on how to create a better, safer, and more generous world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.508 | 0.339 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".