MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7140153615

Learning from the retraction and ridicule of fraudulent research about people and pet dogs in urban parks

2023· other· en· W7140153615 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melanie Rock, Gwendolyn Blue

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrievancePublic healthHealth workerQualitative researchUrban environmentHealth services
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rock, M.J. & Blue G. 2023. The Grievance Hoax, critical scholarship, and healthy cities as multi-species spaces: Learning from the retraction and ridicule of fraudulent research about people and pet dogs in urban parks (Presentation). Resilient Communities: One Urban Health for resilient, inclusive, and innovative cities (Symposium). Organizers and Panelists (in alphabetical order): C. Aenishaenslin (Université de Montréal), M. Boiteux (Université de Montréal), M. Bouchard (Université de Montréal), T. Hancock (University of Victoria), C. Lawand (Health Canada), E. de Leeuw (University of New South Wales), S. Lord (Université de Montréal). Canadian Science Policy Conference, 13-15 November.

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

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearchResearch integrity
Domain: Methods · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Research integrityMetaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDCategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207