MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400916767 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4899691

Fail Club: Reflections on What Happens When Research Does Not Go To Plan

2024· article· en· W4400916767 on OpenAlexaff
Rebekah Willson, Emma Nicol, Heidi Julien, Devon Greyson, Lisa M. Given

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubPlan (archaeology)PsychologyBusinessHistoryGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.293
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.616
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2930.616
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0340.072
Scholarly communication0.0480.044
Open science0.0140.039
Research integrity0.0980.139
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.500
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.111 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→