MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367680925 · doi:10.3138/jsp-2022-0059

Chief Statisticians as Second-to-Last Authors in Biomedical Papers

2023· article· en· W4367680925 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adam Gregosiewicz, Marek Kosmulski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Computer scienceProduction (economics)Operations researchData scienceManagement scienceEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biomedical papers resulting from the cooperation of a biomedical team and a statistical team, the leader of the statistical team is traditionally placed second-to-last in the authors’ list. In many papers, the leader of the statistical team designs, initiates, and supervises the project, so they play a key role in the production of a scientific publication. This key role is not reflected in systems of evaluation of scientific publications in which the second-to-last author receives equal or less credit than the other co-authors.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.316
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.316
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0190.020
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0240.013
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.028

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 head0.384
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 designObservational
DomainIncentives
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207