MétaCan
ENFR
Menu
Cohort builder

4,299,418 works, Canadian by any of four routes.

Every filter state is a URL; the URL is the query; the query is citable via /q/⟨hash⟩. The page, the API and the export parse the same parameters.

Export CSVExport JSONAPI query

The current cohort, streamed from the database: every work column, the machine labels, the provisional scores, and the per-row validation status. Exports are capped at 100,000 rows. Mints a permanent /q/ link for this exact query. The same filters always produce the same link, whoever asks.

Search term
Author
Year range
→
Sort
Language
Type
Field
Venue
Topic
Constraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Retraction
Abstract
Evidence source
Study design
Label agreement
Label status

Direct Codex and Gemma labels are unvalidated and sparse. Distilled predictions cover the full frame and are also unvalidated. Choose the evidence source explicitly; absence of a direct label is never a negative label.

affaffiliation
fundfunder
venuejournal
aboutaboutness

The four routes compose: require the funder route and exclude affiliation to get the funder-only stratum no affiliation-based frame ever sees.

698 results · 1 filter active ·
Results by year
20002025
Publication date
Categories
Machine labels · sparse coverage
Evidence
Language
Type
Citations
An unlabeled work is unknown, not a negative. Label coverage is reported on every query.
698 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 2 of 14

Labels cover 0 of 698 works in this cohort. The rest are unlabeled, which is not a negative label: the label table is sparse today and grows as labeling rounds land.

Distilled predictions cover 698 of 698 works in this cohort. Predictions are machine_predicted_unvalidated. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work (title-only); the Codex side is a distilled, calibrated classifier. Candidate is the union; consensus is the intersection.

affno abstractunlabeled
Using SAT in QBF
Horst Samulowitz, Fahiem Bacchus
2005· book-chapter· en· Lecture notes in computer science· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
40
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Improved Algorithms for the Global Cardinality Constraint
Claude-Guy Quimper, Alejandro López-Ortíz, Peter van Beek, Alexander Golynski
2004· book-chapter· en· Lecture notes in computer science· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
39
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Testing Expressibility Is Hard
Ross Willard
2010· book-chapter· en· Lecture notes in computer science· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
38
citations
afffundunlabeled
Minimal forward checking
Michael J. Dent, Robert E. Mercer
2002· article· en· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
36
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Improved filtering for weighted circuit constraints
Pascal Benchimol, Willem‐Jan van Hoeve, Jean-Charles Régin, Louis-Martin Rousseau, Michel Rueher
2012· article· en· Constraints· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
33
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Optimal Sherali-Adams Gaps from Pairwise Independence
Konstantinos Georgiou, Avner Magen, Madhur Tulsiani
2009· book-chapter· en· Lecture notes in computer science· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
30
citations
affunlabeled
The Parameterized Complexity of Global Constraints
Christian Bessière, Emmanuel Hébrard, Brahim Hnich, Zeynep Kiziltan
2009· article· en· PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal)· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
28
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Lagrangian bounds from decision diagrams
David Bergman, André A. Ciré, Willem‐Jan van Hoeve
2015· article· en· Constraints· Computer Science
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
27
citations
← previousnext →

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About