Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are few truly bad ideas in authentic science. We need to embrace science as a process-driven human endeavour to better understand the world around us. Products are important, but through better transparency, we can leverage ideas, good and bad, ours and others, to do better science. In a brief analysis here inspired by a recent discussion of the topic and previous introspections by other ecologists, it is proposed that whilst it is a good idea to track ideas and all the processes that generate outcomes such as publications, there is inherent merit in all scientific ideas. That said, organizing and framing our ideas into the networks that we already use to examine hypotheses and questions in science is a window into our workflows including ideation, implementation, data analyses, and how we can better map ideas into open science outcomes. Formalizing and describing the linkages between ideas, data, and projects we produce as scientists will enhance and diversify the value of the work we do individually and collectively.
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 | 0.078 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.069 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".