MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400482667 · doi:10.55016/ojs/cpai.v2i1.68016

Maintaining optimism and instilling hope: The work of academic integrity practitioners and scholars

2019· article· en· W4400482667 on OpenAlexaff
Brandy Usick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Perspectives on Academic Integrity · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimismAcademic integrityWork (physics)Engineering ethicsPsychologyStructural integrityPublic relationsMedical educationPolitical scienceSociologyMedicineSocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We open the second volume of the journal with a reflection on the state of our world and campuses and the importance of our work as academic integrity practitioners and scholars. We announce the evolution of the journal to include both peer-reviewed research and practitioner articles.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.137
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.137
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0470.111
Scholarly communication0.0540.024
Open science0.0050.020
Research integrity0.0180.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Perspectives on Academic IntegritySame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207