MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239394609 · doi:10.3138/jsp.37.2.99

Discouraging Verification: Citation Practices across the Disciplines

2006· article· en· W4239394609 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Henige

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredibilityCitationComputer scienceTest (biology)Data scienceSociologyInformation retrievalEpistemologyWorld Wide WebPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of reference notes in scholarly writing is to provide readers with the opportunity to learn more about an issue or to test an author's credibility. As such, they need to include whatever details are necessary to ensure that access be maximally efficient. These data should always include page numbers for both quotes and close paraphrases. Unfortunately, this practice is remarkably uncommon in the sciences and even the social sciences. Failure to include these data is also a failure of good epistemological practice.

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)0.340
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.795
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3400.795
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0210.025
Science and technology studies0.0200.022
Scholarly communication0.0230.029
Open science0.0100.025
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.005

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.237 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainReproducibility
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207