MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2040903042 · doi:10.1126/science.313.5784.159b

To Toronto With Love

2006· article· en· W2040903042 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bush Administration has relaxed controversial attendance limits it had set for the world's largest AIDS meeting next month. In February, the State Department declared that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could send no more than 50 staffers to the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, half from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (Science, 24 February, p. 1086). The policy echoed a similar bar HHS set for the 2004 meeting, which shut out dozens of researchers and drew charges of political interference from lawmakers. After “negotiating” with HHS, says NIH spokesperson John Burklow, NIH will be allowed to send 43 staffers—a compromise between the original 25 and the 77 that NIH had planned to send.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5390.270

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience→Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→