MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376877027 · doi:10.1111/1475-679x.12488

2022 Excellence in Refereeing

2023· article· en· W4376877027 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Accounting Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiamiColumbia universityPerformance studiesMatriculationClinical neuropsychologyLibrary scienceExcellenceState (computer science)Liberal arts educationStrategic studiesAsian American studiesSociologyMedia studiesHigher educationPolitical scienceLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Journal of Accounting Research is proud to recognize our top referees of the previous calendar year. The senior editors selected those named below for their “2022 Excellence in Refereeing” based on the quality and the number of reviews they had performed for the journal during the 2022 calendar year. We thank the referees for their invaluable services to the journal. Jannis Bischof, University of Mannheim Matthew Bloomfield, University of Pennsylvania Pietro Bonetti, IESE Business School Thomas Bourveau, Columbia University Mark Bradshaw, Boston College Matthias Breuer, Columbia University Jung Ho Choi, Stanford University Yiwei Dou, New York University Raphael Duguay, Yale University Travis Dyer, Brigham Young University Henry Eyring, Duke University Fabrizio Ferri, University of Miami Henry Friedman, University of California, Los Angeles Stephen Glaeser, University of North Carolina João Granja, University of Chicago Nicholas Guest, Cornell University Steven Kachelmeier, University of Texas, Austin John Kepler, Stanford University Sehwa Kim, Columbia University Ranjani Krishnan, Michigan State University Lian Fen Lee, Boston College Miao Liu, Boston College Yao Lu, Cornell University Daniele Macciocchi, University of Miami Charles McClure, University of Chicago Mihir Mehta, University of Michigan Maximilian Muhn, University of Chicago James Omartian, University of Michigan Gaizka Ormazabal, IESE Business School Hong Qu, Kennesaw State University Thomas Rauter, University of Chicago Delphine Samuels, University of Chicago Timothy Shields, Chapman University Nemit Shroff, MIT Lorien Stice-Lawrence, University of Southern California Stephen Stubben, University of Utah Andrew Sutherland, MIT Sorabh Tomar, Southern Methodist University Rahul Vashishtha, Duke University Felix Vetter, University of Mannheim Dushyantkumar Vyas, University of Toronto Charles Wang, Harvard Business School Clare Wang, University of Colorado, Boulder Edward Watts, Yale University TJ Wong, University of Southern California Gaoqing Zhang, University of Minnesota Frank Zhou, University of Pennsylvania Christina Zhu, University of Pennsylvania Luo Zuo, Cornell University

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.469
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.076 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Accounting ResearchSame topicImpact of AI and Big Data on Business and SocietyFrench-language works237,207