MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250501231 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v8n2p192

Reviewer Acknowledgements

2019· article· en· W4250501231 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Wendy Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaLibrary scienceMedicineManagementSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International Journal of Statistics and Probability wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their help and contributions in maintaining the quality of the journal is greatly appreciated. Many authors, regardless of whether International Journal of Statistics and Probability publishes their work, appreciate the helpful feedback provided by the reviewers. Reviewers for Volume 8, Number 2 Abdullah A. Smadi, Yarmouk University, Jordan Afsin Sahin, Gazi University, Turkey Carla J. Thompson, University of West Florida, USA Chin-Shang Li, School of Nursing, USA Gabriel A. Okyere, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana Hui Zhang, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, USA Nahid Sanjari Farsipour, Alzahra University, Iran Philip Westgate, University of Kentucky, USA Sajid Ali, Quaid-i-Azam University, Pakistan Shatrunjai Pratap Singh, John Hancock Financial Services, USA Wei Zhang, The George Washington University, USA Weizhong Tian, Eastern New Mexico University, USA Wojciech Gamrot, University of Economics, Poland Zaixing Li, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), China   Wendy Smith On behalf of, The Editorial Board of International Journal of Statistics and Probability Canadian Center of Science and Education

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207