MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390817402 · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100914

Shifting your research from X to Mastodon? Here’s what you need to know

2024· article· en· W4390817402 on OpenAlexafffund
Roel Roscam Abbing, Robert W. Gehl

Bibliographic record

VenuePatterns · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsKey (lock)Need to knowEcologySociologyEnvironmental ethicsComputer scienceBiologyComputer securityPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter/X and subsequent changes to that platform, computational social science researchers may be considering shifting their research programs to Mastodon and the fediverse. This article sounds several notes of caution about such a shift. We explain key differences between the fediverse and X, ultimately arguing that research must be with the fediverse, not on it.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.138
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.138
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0140.030
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0110.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.022

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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations17
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatternsSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207