MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387245955 · doi:10.5195/jmla.2023.1826

Introducing the Journal of the Medical Library Association’s policy on the use of generative artificial intelligence in submissions

2023· editorial· en· W4387245955 on OpenAlexaff
Jill Boruff, Michelle Kraft, AHIP Alexander J. Carrol

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarAssociation (psychology)Medical libraryComputer scienceData scienceLibrary scienceArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the arrival of ChatGPT, the academic community has expressed concerns about how generative artificial intelligence will be used by students and researchers alike. After consulting policies from other journals and discussing among the editorial team, we have created a policy on the use of AI on submissions to JMLA. This editorial provides a brief background on these concerns and introduces our policy.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.256
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.256
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.007
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.384
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLASame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207