MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247603127 · doi:10.3138/jsp.41.3.364

The Joy of Counting

2010· article· en· W4247603127 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Hartley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKeele University
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Point (geometry)PublishingSociologyEpistemologyComputer scienceHistoryMathematicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay illustrates the value of simply counting data when doing research—with six examples taken from the author's own publications on academic writing. These examples show not only how simply counting can clarify an issue about which there is debate but also point to trends and the unexpected in scholarly publishing.

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)0.113
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.336
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1130.336
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.057
Scholarly communication0.0210.054
Open science0.0050.012
Research integrity0.0060.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.469
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.068 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207