MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255913059 · doi:10.1087/095315104322958571

Book Reviews

2004· article· en· W4255913059 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLearned Publishing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsHalsall (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary sciencePublishingPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice , 3rd edn, by F. W. Lancaster Facet Publishing 2003, 464 pp., ISBN 1‐85604‐482‐3, £39.95 Science Editors' Handbook European Association of Science Editors 2003, ISBN 0‐905988‐13‐2, £18 Digital Preservation: The Record of Science , edited by Barry Mahon and Elliot Siegel IOS Press, 2002, 143 pp., ISBN 1‐58603‐317‐4, paperback £65.00

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0300.252
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.229 · 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