MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040831152 · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.020

The case for the inclusion of female subjects in basic science studies of pain

2005· review· en· W2040831152 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey S. Mogil, Mona Lisa Chanda

Bibliographic record

VenuePain · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)PsychologyLibrary scienceMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Department of Psychology and Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 398 6085; fax: +1 514 398 4896. E-mail: [email protected] Submitted June 15, 2005; accepted June 21, 2005.

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)0.094
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0940.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations395
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePainSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207