MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281483289 · doi:10.1192/bjp.2022.74

The integrity of the research record: a mess so big and so deep and so tall

2022· article· en· W4281483289 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Patricia Casey, Norman Poole, Kenneth R. Kaufman, Stephen M. Lawrie, Gin S. Malhi, Eva Petkova, Najma Siddiqi, Kamaldeep Bhui

Bibliographic record

VenueThe British Journal of Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNYU Grossman School of MedicineRobert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyUniversity College DublinUniversity of ExeterSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityUniversity of OxfordYork University
KeywordsResearch integrityScientific integrityStructural integrityAcademic integrityPsychologyEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Poor research integrity is increasingly recognised as a serious problem in science. We outline some evidence for this claim and introduce the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) journals' Research Integrity Group, which has been created to address this problem.

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)0.447
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.812
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4470.812
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0160.022
Science and technology studies0.0100.043
Scholarly communication0.0370.034
Open science0.0080.015
Research integrity0.0290.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.015

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 head0.497
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.006 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe British Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207