MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310005425 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7368755

~![L-I-V-E™]** Croatia vs. Canada Live FIFA World Cup 27 November Kaminapud

2022· article· en· W4310005425 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGeographyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

FIFA World Cup 2022 schedule and scores - Croatia vs Canada Picks and Predictions: True To Form live and final. A promising opening game didn't result in any points for Canada and now a massive game vs. Croatia looms. Despite the favorite's experience, our World Cup picks are expecting Canada to get a needed result. Here is a live look at all the contests and a link to the brackets.\n\n\nCLICK HERE TO WATCH NOW\n\nCLICK HERE TO WATCH NOW\n\n\n2022 World Cup: Croatia vs. Canada odds, picks and predictions. Zlatko Dalic has said his team deserve respect as World Cup runners-up, after Canada's John Herdman used an offensive phrase to gee his own side up for Sunday's group match.\n\nAfter Canada lost 1-0 to Belgium in their opener, manager Herdman said: "I told them they belong here and we're going to go and eff Croatia."\n\nIn Group F action, Croatia (0 wins, 0 losses, 1 draw) and Canada (0-1-0) meet Sunday with kickoff from Khalifa International Stadium set for 11 a.m. ET (FS1). Below, we analyze Tipico Sportsbook's lines around the Croatia vs. Canada odds, and make our best World Cup bets, picks and predictions.\n\nCroatia was held to a 0-0 draw vs. Morocco in its World Cup opener Wednesday. The 2018 runners-up almost broke the deadlock at the end of the 1st half with a close chance from M Nikola Vlasic.\n\nCroatia has the 2nd-best odds to win Group F at +280, behind Belgium at -200.\n\nBelgium G Thibaut Courtois denied Canada F Alphonso Davies from the penalty spot early in the 1st half as Belgium went on to defeat Canada 1-0 Wednesday. Canada moneyline was +500 in the CONCACAF member's 1st World Cup match since 1986.\n\nMatchup\nCanada (0-0-1) vs. Croatia (0-1-0)\n\nKickoff\n12:01 AM, Monday, at Khalifa International Stadium\n\nMATCH FACTS:\n\nCroatia's only defeat in their past 17 games was by 3-0 at home to Austria in the Nations League in June (W11, D5).\n\nThey failed to progress beyond the group stage at all three previous World Cups when they didn't win their opening fixture.\n\nCanada have lost all four of their World Cup matches. They are also yet to score despite 50 attempts on goal across those games.\n\nThe Canadians could become only the second nation to fail to score in their first five World Cup fixtures, emulating Bolivia (1930-94.\n\nΤhe CORD-19 dataset released by the team of Semantic Scholar1 anddg\nΤhe curated data provided by the LitCovid hub2.gd\n\nThese data have been cleaned and integrated with data from COVID-19-TweetIDs and from other sources (e.g., PMC). The result was dataset of 500,314 unique articles along with relevant metadata (e.g., the underlying citation network). We utilized this dataset to produce, for each article, the values of the following impact measures:\n\nInfluence: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of an article. This is based on the PageRank3 network analysis method. In the context of citation networks, it estimates the importance of each article based on its centrality in the whole network. This measure was calculated using the PaperRanking (https://github.com/diwis/PaperRanking) library4.\nInfluence_alt: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of a\n\nThese data have been cleaned and integrated with data from COVID-19-TweetIDs and from other sources (e.g., PMC). The result was dataset of 500,314 unique articles along with relevant metadata (e.g., the underlying citation network). We utilized this dataset to produce, for each article, the values of the following impact measures:sdgfdh\n\nInfluence: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of an article. This is based on the PageRank3 network analysis method. In the context of citation networks, it estimates the importance of each article based on its centrality in the whole network. This measure was calculated using the PaperRanking (https://github.com/diwis/PaperRanking) library4.sdgd\nInfluence_alt: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of an article. This is the Citation Count of each article, calculated based on the citation network between the articles contained in the BIP4COVID19 dataset.sdgf\n\nsafs Popularity: Citation-based measure reflecting the current impact of an article. This is based on the AttRank5 citation network analysis method. Methods like PageRank are biased against recently published articles (new articles need time to receive their first citations). AttRank alleviates this problem incorporating an attention-based mechanism, akin to a time-restricted version of preferential attachment, to explicitly capture a researcher's preference to read papers which received a lot of attention recently. This is why it is more suitable to capture the current "hype" of an article.asdsg\n\nsf Popularity alternative: An alternative citation-based measure reflecting the current impact of an article (this was the basic popularity measured provided by BIP4COVID19 until version 26). This is based on the RAM6 citation network analysis method. Methods like PageRank are biased against recently published articles (new articles need time to receive their first citations). RAM alleviates this problem using an approach known as "time-awareness". This is why it is more suitable to capture the current "hype" of an article. This measure was calculated using the PaperRanking (https://github.com/diwis/PaperRanking) library4.sfb\nSocial Media Attention: The number of tweets related to this article. Relevant data were collected from the COVID-19-TweetIDs dataset. In this version, tweets between 23/6/22-29/6/22 have been considered from the previous dataset.\n\nWe provide five CSV files, all containing the same information, however each having its entries ordered by a different impact measure. All CSV files are tab separated and have the same columns (PubMed_id, PMC_id, DOI, influence_score, popularity_alt_score, popularity score, influence_alt score, tweets count). jkfs krteojkdf fkjsdkn kfmdso dskroejk

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,673
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,960

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,001
Communication savante0,0060,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,3270,080

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 Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,215
Écart entre enseignants0,181 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Même sujetHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→Travaux en français237 207→