Replication Data for Perceptions of research integrity and open science practices: a survey of Brazilian dental researchers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This data was collected for a study that aimed to evaluate the perceptions of Brazilian dental researchers of research integrity and open science practices, as well as their perceptions of how researchers are assessed for promotion, hiring, and receiving grants. In a self-administered online survey, the respondents were presented with 3 questions on researcher evaluation in Brazil. Additionally, for 25 academic activities or characteristics, researchers rated their perceived importance for (I) advancing career, (II) advancing science, (III) personal satisfaction, and (IV) social impact. The questionnaire was sent to a total of 2,179 dental researchers working in the graduate programs in dentistry in Brazil. 355 (16%) researchers completed the survey.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchOpen scienceResearch integrity Domain: Methods · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | MetaresearchOpen scienceResearch integrity Domain: Methods · Genre: Dataset About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.166 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it