MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4255031967 · doi:10.1111/tops.12516

Introduction to Volume 12, Issue 3 of <i>topiCS</i>

2020· article· en· W4255031967 sur OpenAlex
Wayne D. Gray

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueTopics in Cognitive Science · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueChild and Animal Learning Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublishingFeelingCognitionPsychologyLibrary scienceCognitive sciencePsychoanalysisComputer scienceNeurosciencePolitical scienceLawSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

For our July 2020 issue (Volume 12, Issue 3), we publish three topics. The first is a one-paper reply from Rafael Núñez and colleagues entitled, "For the Sciences They are A-Changin’: A Response to Commentaries on Núñez et al.'s (2019) 'What Happened to Cognitive Science?' " The history of this topic is unusual. It began life as a Nature Human Behavior paper (Núñez et al., 2019) which “accused” the field of Cognitive Science of being multidisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary. As this paper evoked strong feelings among many cognitive scientists, we invited 10 contributions to the topic, which we published in October 2019 (Volume 11, Issue 4). The current paper is the Núñez response to these 10 papers. Note that the response was reviewed by two distinguished members of our community and I acted as the Action Editor. Also, please note that we will not be publishing replies to the replies. However, if a group is interested in publishing a full paper on this topic, we have procedures for that, and you are invited to follow those procedures to submit a proposal for a topic on this matter. The second topic in this issue was organized and edited by Carel ten Cate (Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden University) and his extensive team of co-editors: Judit Gervain (Integrative Neuroscience and Cognition Center, CNRS), Clara C. Levelt (Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition), Christopher Petkov (Newcastle University Medical School), and William Zuidema (University of Amsterdam). Their fascinating and important topic is well summarized by the title of the Editors’ Review and Introduction: Learning Grammatical Structures: Developmental, Cross-Species, and Computational Approaches. Please note that all Editors’ Reviews and Introductions written for any topic are available as free downloads courtesy of our publisher. If you are a student, new to the field, or if you are a colleague, in another area of cognitive science, interested in catching up on what your colleagues in our multidisciplinary field are doing, then these papers are what you are looking for. Our third topic in this issue is our annual Best of the International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM) edited this year by Terrance C. Stewart (Associate Research Officer at the National Research Council Canada) and Christopher W. Myers (U. S. Air Force Research Laboratory). ICCM is a small group of researchers which has been holding meetings and publishing proceeding for about 30 years. As a small group, it has evolved rapidly over time with the one constant (maybe) being its focus on models of human behavior. The group’s original focus on computational models has been augmented lately by mathematical and statistical modeling. Interestingly, as Stewart points out in his introduction, this year none of their “best-ofs” are modeling the mythical average human; rather all of their best papers have something to do with modeling the performance and cognition of individual humans. The ICCM best-ofs has always been a solid and sometimes exciting collection of papers. For those of us interested in understanding “individuals,” it has just become more exciting. To our readers, keep searching and reading topiCS for our high-quality, curated collections of papers on timely topics of interest to the broad cognitive science community. topiCS encourages letters and commentaries on all topics, and proposals for new topics. Letters are typically 400–1,000 words (maximum of two published pages) and will be published without an abstract or references (possibly 1–2 but usually none). Commentaries are often solicited by Topic Editors prior to the publication of their topic. However, commentaries after publication are also considered and should range between 1,000 and 2,000 words. Most commentaries would not have an abstract and would not include many references. The Executive Editor and the Senior Editorial Board (SEB) members are constantly searching for new and exciting topics for topiCS. Feel free to open communications with a short note to the Executive Editor (mail to: [email protected]) or an SEB member (SEB members are listed under the Editorial Board heading on the publisher’s homepage for topiCS [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1756-8765/homepage/EditorialBoard.html]).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,575
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,326
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle