MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4286632017 · doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.aa5bf2e9

A Referee Primer for Early Career Astronomers

2022· article· et· W4286632017 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Ntampaka, Ana Bonaca, Sownak Bose, Daniel J. Eisenstein, Boryana Hadzhiyska, Charlotte Mason, Daisuke Nagai, Joshua S. Speagle

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageet
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingPrimer (cosmetics)PsychologyLibrary scienceMedical educationManagementSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicineLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Refereeing is a crucial component of publishing astronomical research, but few professional astronomers receive formal training on how to effectively referee a manuscript. In this article, we lay out considerations and best practices for referees. This document is intended as a tool for early career researchers to develop a fair, effective, and efficient approach to refereeing.

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)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.345
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.345
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0160.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.043

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 head0.240
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth and Medical Research Impacts→French-language works237,207→