MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256351192 · doi:10.3138/jsp.36.2.58

Commas, Christians, and Editors

2005· article· en· W4256351192 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Henige

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYDisadvantageScholarshipConsistency (knowledge bases)InterpreterFunction (biology)Computer scienceEpistemologySociologyLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good scholarship depends as much on good editing as on good research. Editors serve as indispensable interpreters by improving consistency, clarity, and accuracy, without which research would fall on thorny ground or, worse, prove to be inadequate. In this essay the author discusses several ways in which editors can transform discourse, sometimes to its disadvantage, and suggests that the importance of the function requires applying the highest possible standards. In the circumstances, it is unfortunate that editing is not always regarded by the academic community as a truly intellectual challenge.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.020

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207