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
Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
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.

1,638 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.
1,638 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 25 of 33

Labels cover 2 of 1,638 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 1,638 of 1,638 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.

fundno affunlabeled
Introducing 1,5 T MRgFUS
2015· book-chapter· en· Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.)· Engineering
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Future Prospects for Contrast Ultrasound
Peter N. Burns, Charles Tremblay‐Darveau, Paul S. Sheeran
2017· article· en· Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology· Engineering
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affunlabeled
Miniature histotripsy device to treat human pathologies
Connor S. Centner, Matthew Mallay, Jeremy Brown, Jonathan A. Kopechek
2024· article· en· The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America· Engineering
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affunlabeled
Authors’ reply to Farrar
Stefan Schandelmaier, Reed Siemieniuk, Thomas Agoritsas, Per Olav Vandvik, Gordon Guyatt, Jason W. Busse
2017· letter· de· BMJ· Engineering
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affunlabeled
10.1063/1.4816750.7
Christopher Acconcia, Ben Y. C. Leung, Kullervo Hynynen, David E. Goertz
2013· dataset· en· Default Digital Object Group· Engineering
machine prediction:candidate · insufficient_payloadconsensus · none
0
citations
affaboutunlabeled
Self-demodulation effect on subharmonic response of ultrasound contrast agent
Verya Daeichin, Telli Faez, A. Needles, Guillaume Renaud, Johan G. Bosch, A.F.W. van der Steen +1 more
2012· article· en· Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE· Engineering
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affvenueunlabeled
A not-so-systematic review – The authors respond
Shanil Ebrahim, Brent Mollon, Sheena Bance, Jason W. Busse, Mohit Bhandari
2014· review· en· Canadian Journal of Surgery· Engineering
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
← previousnext →

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About