MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390047018 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011689

Ten simple rules for writing a PLOS Computational Biology quick tips article

2023· article· en· W4390047018 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia M. Palagi, Russell Schwartz, Scott Markel, B. F. Francis Ouellette

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsBioinformatics Solutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceComputational biologyBiologyData scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At that time, the change in how we communicate sciences had already begun [2]: social media was blooming, the information deluge was ongoing, and the fear of missing information was anchored in each of us. The Ten Simple Rules collection filled a space in scientific publications where researchers eager to share their experiences, wisdom, and doubts could quickly do it using a colloquial narrative. The topics covered were broad themes in scientific practice, such as soft skills and career development, captured in a concise and quick-to-read format, something between a blog post and a scientific article.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207