MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999417519 · doi:10.1634/stemcells.22-1-1

Editors' Note for 2004

2004· article· en· W1999417519 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cells · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLegal Cases and Commentary
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of PennsylvaniaPrinceton UniversityLunds UniversitetChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biologyComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are pleased to report that 2003 was a record year for Stem Cells submissions—we received over 170 new manuscripts (a 49 percent increase over 2002). The adoption of the Manuscript Central online submission and review program surely contributed to this accomplishment, as did the fact that Stem Cells earned an enviable ISI Citation Index of 4.034 in 2003. Thanks in great measure to our Editorial Board, Stem Cells currently has more than 100,000 online readers per month, and the journal ranks in the top 10 percent of high‐impact cancer journals. This large global audience and professional recognition is a testimony to the excellence of the Journal's articles. We gratefully acknowledge our Editorial Board members for their expert work in reviewing these manuscripts. And we welcome the newest members joining the board this year: ... It gives us great pleasure to honor Dieter F. Hoelzer, Donald Metcalf, and Fumimaro Takaku by welcoming them to the Comité des Sages Advisory Board for Stem Cells after many years of dedicated service to the Journal.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · 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