MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409915054 · doi:10.21983/p3.0110.1.06

How I Write (I)

2015· book-chapter· en· W4409915054 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Conklin Akbari

Bibliographic record

VenuePunctum Books · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Writing is dangerous business. Like the mate keeping watch in the crow’s nest, you can spend hours and hours just watching, waiting, hoping for the moment to come when you can at last leap into action. During that long anxious period of waiting, if you’re not careful, you may plunge into the “Descartian vortices” below, submerged eternally in the “summer sea.” But there is no right way to guard against this danger, no right way to write. This collection of essays, therefore, has as its purpose to describe not how to write, but how we actually do write.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.058

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.097 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePunctum BooksSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207