MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Erratum for “Tracking the Built Status of MEP Works: Assessing the Value of a Scan-vs.-BIM System” by Frédéric Bosché, Adrien Guillemet, Yelda Turkan, Carl T. Haas, and Ralph Haas

2014· erratum· en· W2051170580 on OpenAlexaff
Frédéric Bosché, Adrien Guillemet, Yelda Türkan, Carl T. Haas, Ralph Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing in Civil Engineering · 2014
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValue (mathematics)EngineeringComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: other
about Canada: no
confidence: low

Erratum for a civil engineering paper; the rubric lists corrections under T3, but this notice concerns a domain paper and has no bearing on the metaresearch ecosystem.

GPT-5.6 (high)T3 · adjacent, not in scope
genre: other
about Canada: no
confidence: high

An erratum is a contextual correction in the scholarly record.

Grok 4.5T3 · adjacent, not in scope
genre: other
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Published erratum/correction, mapped as contextual ecosystem material under the rubric.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.044

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computing in Civil EngineeringSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207