MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327595113 · doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12854

<scp><i>CAR</i></scp> Ad Hoc Reviewers 2022/<scp><i>RCC</i></scp> Réviseurs ad hoc 2022

2023· article· en· W4327595113 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Accounting Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Washington BothellIndiana University BloomingtonUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstUniversity of California, IrvineCalifornia State University, FullertonUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of Colorado BoulderUniversity of California, Los AngelesCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignSingapore Management UniversityLingnan UniversityShanghai University of Finance and EconomicsUniversiteit AntwerpenUniversità BocconiConcordia UniversitySouthern Methodist UniversityUniversité LavalAalto-YliopistoUniversity of South AustraliaWashington University in St. LouisMonash UniversityUniversity of WashingtonRijksuniversiteit GroningenDurham UniversityCopenhagen Business SchoolTulane UniversitySungkyunkwan UniversityUniversidad Carlos III de MadridUniversity of MissouriMarquette UniversityUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonWilfrid Laurier UniversityFogarty International CenterYeshiva UniversityNational University of SingaporePeking UniversityKU LeuvenUniversity of South CarolinaSeoul National UniversityUniversity of Massachusetts BostonUniversity of South DakotaUniversity of OregonLondon School of Economics and Political SciencePepperdine UniversitySaint Louis UniversityFudan UniversityStanford Graduate School of BusinessUniversidad del AtlánticoMcMaster UniversityUniversität St. GallenUniversity of Technology SydneySanta Clara UniversityUniversity of PittsburghIowa State UniversityQueen Mary University of LondonCentral University of Finance and EconomicsUniversity of PennsylvaniaFlorida Atlantic UniversityGeorgia State UniversityDrexel UniversityDePaul UniversityNanyang Technological UniversityTexas Christian UniversityGeorgetown UniversityUniversity of North TexasUniversity of Central FloridaUniversity of DenverOregon State UniversityUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnJohns Hopkins UniversityNorth Carolina State UniversityUniversity of ConnecticutMichigan State UniversityJames Madison UniversityUniversity of MiamiBoston CollegeFlorida International UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityUniversity of WaterlooCity University of Hong KongUniversity of Notre DameHarvard Business SchoolUniversity of GlasgowYork UniversityGeorge Mason UniversityVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityNanjing UniversityMississippi State UniversityQueen's UniversityTel Aviv UniversityUniversiteit MaastrichtBrigham Young UniversityUniversity of New South WalesCity University of New YorkSyracuse UniversityUniversity of MinnesotaTemple UniversityOklahoma State UniversityArizona State UniversityUniversiteit van TilburgYale UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonRoyal Holloway, University of LondonGeorgia Institute of TechnologyGeorge Washington UniversityRice UniversityUniversity of ReadingOhio State UniversityTexas State UniversityUniversity of Southern CaliforniaPurdue UniversityClemson UniversityUtah State UniversityFlorida State UniversityUniversity of LouisvilleUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsCitationPost hocPost-hoc analysisComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary Accounting ResearchVolume 40, Issue 1 p. E1-E11 LIST OF REVIEWERS CAR Ad Hoc Reviewers 2022/RCC Réviseurs ad hoc 2022 First published: 16 March 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12854Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume40, Issue1Spring 2023Pages E1-E11 RelatedInformation

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 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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.006

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Accounting ResearchSame topicLegal and Policy IssuesFrench-language works237,207