MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400279587 · doi:10.3138/jsp-2023-0082

On Editor’s Instructions to Manuscript Reviewers

2024· article· en· W4400279587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Lee Lyman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three to four decades ago an editor’s instructions to manuscript reviewers requested that reviewers focus on evaluating the quality and significance of the author’s research. Recent instructions now include things a reviewer should not do, such as not concerning oneself with manuscript formatting, not correcting typographical errors, and not correcting grammar. If sloppy formatting, typographical errors, and poor grammar detract from the quality and significance of the author’s research, the reviewer must comment on these attributes, particularly when these things detract from evaluating the quality and significance of the research described.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.378
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.378
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.008
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0130.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2340.302

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207