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
Visual perception and processing mechanisms
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.

3,914 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.
3,914 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 1 of 79

Labels cover 2 of 3,914 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 3,914 of 3,914 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
Inhibition of return
Raymond M. Klein
2000· review· en· Trends in Cognitive Sciences· Neuroscience
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
1,899
citations
affunlabeled
Change Detection
Ronald A. Rensink
2002· article· en· Annual Review of Psychology· Neuroscience
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
809
citations
afffundno abstractunlabeled
What’s new in visual masking?
James T. Enns, Vincent Di Lollo
2000· review· en· Trends in Cognitive Sciences· Neuroscience
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
690
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Transforming vision into action
Melvyn A. Goodale
2010· review· en· Vision Research· Neuroscience
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
346
citations
affunlabeled
Visually Guided Reaching Depends on Motion Area MT+
David Whitney, Amanda Ellison, Nichola J. Rice, Derek H. Arnold, Melvyn A. Goodale, Vincent Walsh +1 more
2007· article· en· Cerebral Cortex· Neuroscience
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
342
citations
affunlabeled
Visual Prior Entry
David I. Shore, Charles Spence, Raymond M. Klein
2001· article· en· Psychological Science· Neuroscience
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
316
citations
affunlabeled
Visual complexity: A review.
D. C. Donderi
2006· review· en· Psychological Bulletin· Neuroscience
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
292
citations
affunlabeled
The cortical deficit in humans with strabismic amblyopia
Gareth R. Barnes, Robert F. Hess, Serge O. Dumoulin, Rebecca L. Achtman, G. Bruce Pike
2001· article· en· The Journal of Physiology· Neuroscience
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
252
citations
next →

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About