MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311046123 · doi:10.1007/s11192-022-04565-6

Retraction of Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences lacks justification

2022· article· en· W4311046123 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Abramo, Isidro F. Aguillo, Dag W. Aksnes, Kevin W. Boyack, Quentin L. Burrell, Juan Miguel Campanario, Zaida Chinchilla‐Rodríguez, Rodrigo Costas, Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, Anne‐Wil Harzing, Hamid R. Jamali, Vincent Larivière, Loet Leydesdorff, Marc Luwel, Ben R. Martin, Philipp Mayr, Katherine W. McCain, Isabella Peters, Ismael Ràfols, Nicolás Robinson‐García, Torben Schubert, Henry Small, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Mike Thelwall, Peter van den Besselaar, Thed N. van Leeuwen, Ludo Waltman

Bibliographic record

VenueScientometrics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusPublishingBibliometricsLibrary scienceData sciencePolitical scienceRegional scienceComputer scienceGeographyMEDLINELaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearchResearch integrityBibliometrics
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.277
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.277
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.2160.601
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.773
GPT teacher head0.621
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchResearch integrityBibliometrics

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Not applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical · Editorial

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueScientometricsSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207