MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411553941 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003215

AI-mediated translation presents two possible futures for academic publishing in a multilingual world

2025· article· en· W4411553941 on OpenAlexafffund
Tatsuya Amano, Lynne Bowker, Andrew Burton-Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsBiologyFutures contractPublishingTranslation (biology)Library scienceGeneticsComputer scienceLiteratureGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the availability and performance of artificial intelligence for language editing and translation continues to improve, we can imagine a future in which everyone can use their own language to write, assess, and read science. The question is, how can we achieve it?

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.020
Scholarly communication0.0380.043
Open science0.0040.015
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.021

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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207