MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7104257289 · doi:10.1016/j.ajpe.2025.101704

Academic Conference Poster Quality Rubric Version 2.0

2025· article· en· W7104257289 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricQuality (philosophy)Systematic reviewEducational measurementSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Following initially creating and evaluating a poster-quality scoring rubric, we aimed to take evidence from a systematic review of literature on posters, along with scores and feedback from multiple academics to further refine that poster-quality rubric.

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)0.156
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.368
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1560.368
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0130.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.015

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical EducationSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207