Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The online research environment has changed somewhat dramatically over the decade 2000–10, and researchers are now more connected than ever before both to their fellow researchers and to an unprecedented amount of information. It is now possible to ‘watch’ research as it happens – and in some cases to participate in its development – as one can follow the blogs of well known researchers, receive RSS updates from websites with a research focus, subscribe to podcasts, participate in the creation of wikis and in other collaborative environments, share citations and other bookmarks and join social networks around topic-specific research interests. All of these activities fall under the heading of the so-called Web 2.0, a suite of tools and technologies that has changed the way we interact with and use the web. In an early article on Web 2.0 and medicine, Giustini notes that ‘the more we use, share, and exchange information on the web in a continual loop of analysis and refinement, the more open and creative the platform becomes, hence, the more useful it is in our work’ (Giustini, 2006, 1283).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it