MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7010738961

Kurzrezension zu: Erfolgreich Publizieren. 3. überarb. u. erw. Aufl. Opladen & Toronto: Barbara Budrich, 2019

2019· other· de· W7010738961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOPUS (Augsburg University) · 2019
Typeother
Languagede
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRenaissance and Early Modern Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanSubject (documents)Confusion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wenn Sie wissen wollen, welcher Buchtyp des „Verlegers liebstes Kind“ (Budrich 2019, S. 20; Hervorh. i. Orig.) ist oder warum Sie kein Buch herausgeben sollten, wenn Sie nicht bereit sind „Freunde zu verlieren“ (ebd. S. 120; Hervorh. i. Orig.) ist ein Blick in den knappen utb-Band Erfolgreich Publizieren von Barbara Budrich lohnenswert.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3600.257

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOPUS (Augsburg University)Same topicRenaissance and Early Modern StudiesFrench-language works237,207