MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1946178535 · doi:10.1177/007327530304100202

Who Discovered the Expanding Universe?

2003· article· en· W1946178535 on OpenAlexaff
Helge Kragh, Robert W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUniverseHistoryAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'expansion de l'univers est reconnue comme un fait mais peut etre decrite comme une decouverte. L'A. analyse le concept de la decouverte scientifique, rappelle les principes d'Einstein qui l'ont conduit a la theorie de l'univers en expansion et decrit comment Hubble (E.) fut associe a la decouverte de l'univers en expansion

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.017
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.555
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.036 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory of ScienceSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207