Bibliographic record
Abstract
* Correspondence: stephen. buckman@anu.edu.au Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Full list of author information is available at the end of the article The development of experimental science in the past half century has produced advances in areas such as electroncs and communications, new materials, optical technologies, computer processing techniques and biomedical science, to name just a few. These advances have in turn motivated the design of experiments that are increasingly complex, sophisticated, and ambitious, producing results of unprecedented accuracy, precision, and novelty. As a result, fundamental research results, and the new technologies that may arise from them, are often produced using customised or purpose-built equipment, materials, or software that may exist in only one or two facilities worldwide. The design principles and techniques employed are often ground-breaking, yet results published in traditional journals often do not include the detail necessary for reproducing the work, or applying it in related areas of science. Other helpful information, such as best practices guides, and solutions to common problems, often does not fit within the scope of a traditional academic journal or is brushed over in the focus on the scientific outcome. With the launch of EPJ Techniques and Instrumentation (EPJ TI) we hope to specifically address this need, encouraging the open access dissemination of detailed experimental design descriptions, experimental techniques and practices, and examples of results that arise from such experiments, that go beyond the scope of traditional scientific journal articles. The purpose of EPJ TI is to catalyze the development and adoption of next-generation techniques and technologies. We will do this through the publication of regular articles, openly submitted, and through the use of thematic series where we can stimulate the publication of important papers in contemporary research areas. EPJ TI is an open-access journal, part of the new suite of OA titles published in the EPJ series. As such it is funded by article processing charges (APCs), but a number of initiatives are in place to assist authors if they do not have access to publication funding. These include the SpringerOpen membership scheme (www.springeropen.com/inst/), reduced charges for authors in developing regions, and editorial discretionary waivers. If you are considering submitting to EPJ TI but do not have the necessary funding, please contact us (epjti@edpsciences.org) and we will endeavour to help.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.066 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".