MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293769192 · doi:10.5539/sar.v11n3p54

Reviewer Acknowledgements for Sustainable Agriculture Research, Vol. 11, No. 3

2022· article· en· W4293769192 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgriculturePolitical scienceResearch centerLibrary scienceSustainable agricultureGeographyAgricultural economicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable Agriculture Research wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their help and contributions in maintaining the quality of the journal are greatly appreciated. Sustainable Agriculture Research is recruiting reviewers for the journal. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, we welcome you to join us. Please contact us for the application form at: sar@ccsenet.org Reviewers for Volume 11, Number 3 Bed Mani Dahal, Kathmandu University, Nepal Boutheina Zougari, Regional Research Centre of Oasis Agriculture-Degache, Tunisia Jiban Shrestha, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Nepal Katarzyna Panasiewicz, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Poland Luciano Chi, Sugar Industry Research and Development Institute, Belize Luis F. Pina, Universidad de Chile, Chile Manuel Teles Oliveira, University Tras os Montes Alto Douro (UTAD), Portugal Minfeng Tang, Kansas State University, USA Patrice Ngatsi Zemko, University of Yaoundé I, Cameroon Tenaw Workayehu, Hawassa Research Center, Southern Agricultural Research Institute, Ethiopia Waqar Majeed, University of Agriculture, Pakistan

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.272
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.272
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.056

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207