MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408458127 · doi:10.1029/2025jg008871

Honoring Our 2024 Reviewers: Advancing Excellence and Equity in <i>JGR Biogeosciences</i>

2025· article· en· W4408458127 on OpenAlex
Xiaojuan Feng, D. N. Huntzinger, Ben Bond‐Lamberty, Gil Bohrer, Marguerite A. Xenopoulos

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceEquity (law)Political scienceMedia studiesPsychologyManagementSociologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Peer review is a critical evaluation process, one that is time‐consuming but needed to maintain quality and credibility in science. At JGR Biogeosciences we are honoring the many 2024 reviewers who donated their time and expertise to ensure rigor, novelty, inclusiveness, and open practices for improving and advancing biogeosciences research.

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.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.024
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.339 · 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