Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Croatia vs Canada World Cup LIVE, also known as FIFA World Cup, is a professional football tournament in World for men. There are overall 32 teams that typically compete in a period between November and December\n\n \n\n\n\tCLICK HERE TO WATCH LIVE FREE\n\n\n \n\nHere's our storylines, how you can watch the match and more:\n\nHow to watch and odds\n\n\n\tDate: Sunday, Nov. 27 | Time: 11 a.m. ET\n\tLocation: Khalifa International Stadium -- Al Rayyan, Qatar\n\tTV: FS1 | Live stream: fuboTV (Try for free)\n\tOdds: Croatia +114; Draw +230; Canada +245 (via Caesars Sportsbook) \n\n\n \n\nThis dataset contains impact metrics and indicators for a set of publications that are related to the COVID-19 infectious disease and the coronavirus that causes it. It is based on:\n\n Τhe CORD-19 dataset released by the team of Semantic Scholar1 and\n Τhe curated data provided by the LitCovid hub2.\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\n Influence: 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.\n Influence_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.\n 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.\n 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.\n Social 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).
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,058 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».