MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948942060 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1243299

Making Archaeology Fair[Er]

2018· other· en· W6948942060 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant chemical constituents analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteroperabilityArchaeology of the AmericasGeorge (robot)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In April 2018, at the Society for American Archaeology’s 83rd Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., Sarah Whitcher Kansa, Julian Richards and Willeke Wendrich hosted a forum entitled ‘Making Archaeology Fair’ (see abstract below). The forum responded to a recently published article by Wilkinson et al. outlining FAIR data principles, centred on avenues for making scientific data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. In preparation for this forum, I produced this illustrated graphic.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0150.016
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2420.075

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicPlant chemical constituents analysisFrench-language works237,207