© 2009 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1960s, Al Jaffe at Mad Magazine in the UnitedStates created his wildly popular “Snappy Answers toStupid Questions ” (SATSQ) comic. The idea was straightforward: cockamamie questions deserve equally silly (and potentially belligerent) responses. Such a brilliant axiom, however, has never been applied in professional cir-cles, even though authors are constantly bombarded with excessively nonsensical feedback in the peer-review process for grants and publications. The continued failure of the medical community to effectively translate the SATSQ approach (used in the lay community for years) into practice has stymied the advancement of science, artificially length-ened turn-around times for manuscript reviews,1 and denied many deserving academics of the therapeutic value that this method holds. Research suggests that professionals may not respond appropriately to silly comments because they feel bound by stringent rules of collegiality;1 they are expected sim-ply to bite their tongues and respond with utmost diplo-
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.371 | 0.023 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".