MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7021743860

Innovative Science

2015· other· en· W7021743860 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MissouriDurham UniversityUniversity of BristolUniversity of AberdeenUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of ReadingUniversity of WarwickUniversity of OxfordU.S. Naval AcademyUniversity College LondonNational Academy of SciencesCardiff UniversityUniversity of Notre DameLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUniversity of PittsburghImperial College LondonQueen Mary University of LondonUniversity of WashingtonHarvard UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of LeicesterFlorida State UniversityArizona State UniversityCalifornia Institute of Technology
KeywordsExploitProcess (computing)Subject (documents)Value (mathematics)EXPOSE
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0130.023
Science and technology studies0.0000.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.010

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 venueCaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology)French-language works237,207