← Back to cohort
Die Gutachter:innen zum 50. Jahrgang (2021)
Petra Aigner, Linz Alkemeyer, Oldenburg Thomas, Klaus-Dieter Altmeppen, Eichstätt Ammann, Bielefeld Anicker, Münster Fabian, Duisburg Armbruster, Gina Atzeni, München Augustijn, Duisburg Lara, Ruth Ayaß, Bielefeld Bach, Mannheim Backes, Vechta Behrens, Berlin Bereswill, Kassel Mechthild, Roger L. Berger, Leipzig Berghammer, Wien Best, K. Henning, Trier Daniel, Tübingen Floris, Bamberg Felix, Birgit Blättel‐Mink, Berlin Blank, B Johannesen Tom, Bonn Jörg, Augsburg Martin, Andreas Boes, München Böhringer, Duisburg Boldt-Jaremko, Thea Käthe, Potsdam Brauer, Neubrandenburg Kai, Berlin Brünning, B. Florian, Stefanie Büchner, H. E. Büttner, Berlin Carstensen, München Corsten, Hildesheim Michael, Mainz Torsten, Sebastian Dahm, Bielefeld Dangschad, Wien Dederich, K. Dilger, L. Clara, Julia Dittmar, Berlin Karolin, J. Antonelli Patrick, Braunschweig Christian, Konstanz Clemens, Bielefeld Thomas, Leipzig Robert, Axel Franzen, Bern Fritz-Hoffmann, Bielefeld Fuhse, Berlin Gamper, Köln Gerlinger, Kassel Lars, Bern David, Berlin Cornelia, Heike Greschke, Dresden Greshoff, Bremen Häußling, A. Baldwin Roger, Bielefeld Kerstin, Jonathan Harth, Witten Haußner, Duisburg Hambauer, Göttingen Heiland, Hermanni Von, Dresden Hagen, Berlin Felicitas, Tübingen Steffen, Hamburg Thomas, Dagmar Hoffmann, Siegen Hornbostel, Berlin Hubrich, Oldenburg Michael, Berlin Christian, Stefan Immerfall, Gmünd Schwäbisch, W.L. Jansen, Trier Uwe, Kay Junge, Bielefeld Uwe, Mannheim Frank, Hamburg Udo, Markus Klein, Hannover Kleinert, Bamberg Corinna, Lisa Knoll, Paderborn Koopmans, Berlin Ruud, Dortmund Kotthaus, Michaela Kreyenfeld, Berlin Kroh, Lehn Vom Dirk, London Leontowitsch, Miranda Kathrin, Jena Lohse, L Cotton Simon, Stephan Lorenz, Jena Lübke, Duisburg Marz, Rostock Matthes, Nürnberg Matiaske, Hamburg Wenzel, Oldenburg Hironori, Elisabeth Maué, Konstanz Mayerl, Chemnitz Meier, Andrea Lars, London Menze, Berlin Laura, Sigrid Metz-Göckel, Dortmund Meyer, Konstanz Christian, Karoline Mikus, Tübingen Minnetian, Bielefeld Misoch, St Gallen Möller, Dortmund Müller, München Julian, Tübingen Marion, B. Florian, Berlin Oliver, Berlin Martin, Berlin Valentin, Nürnberg Christopher, Mainz Gunnar, Johanna Paul, Bielefeld Paulus, Erfurt Pfeffer, Michigan Fabian, Axel Philipps, H. Pickel, Leipzig Gert, Matthias Pollmann‐Schult, Magdeburg Pritz, Nürnberg Sarah, Paula Protsch, Berlin Quast, Hannover Ringel, Bielefeld Leopold, Siegen Tobias, Zürich Jörg, Oxford Tobias, München Saake, Bremen Patrick, Halle Reinhold, Saale Sander, Berlin Tobias, S. Schäfer, H Senanayake Chris, Brigitte Thomas, Nürnberg Schendzielorz, Hannover Cornelia, Larissa Schindler, Bayreuth Schmale, Köln Schmid, Kassel Schmidt, Bielefeld Schmidt-Lux, Leipzig Thomas, Marco Schmitt, Aachen Schneck, München Schneijderberg, A. Shively Christian, Bremen Schreier, Siegen Cornelius, Köln Frank, Gießen Doris, Berlin David, D Robert, Christoph Spörlein, Düsseldorf Spreen, Berlin Sprenger, Erlangen Ronald, Bamberg Christian, Janna Teltemann, Hildesheim Terhart, Köln Henrike, Zürich Martin, Heike Trappe, Rostock Truschkat, Berlin Vormbusch, H F Bunz Uwe, Würzburg Wagner, Greta Wagner, Darmstadt Waibel, Wedelstaedt Von, Konstanz Ulrich, Jan Wehrheim, Essen Weißmann, M.A. Navas Martín, Bielefeld Tobias, Maastricht Katarina, Matthias J. Wieser, Klagenfurt Wilm, Bielefeld Dorothee, Bielefeld Heidemarie, Daniel Witte
Bibliographic record
VenueZeitschrift für Soziologie · 2022
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Practices and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsStaples (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science
Abstract
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.880
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.263 | 0.172 |
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno