MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064006741 · doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2006.03.015

Between local cultures and national styles: Units of analysis in the history of electroencephalography

2006· article· en· W2064006741 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComptes Rendus Biologies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyHumanitiesGermanSkepticismPhilosophyPsychologyPsychiatryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of the discovery of the human electroencephalogram (EEG) and the ensuing implementation of electroencephalography is characterized by striking national differences. The first publication on the EEG in 1929 by the German psychiatrist Hans Berger was met with skepticism. Substantial work in this area did not start before the public demonstration of the EEG by the British neurophysiologist Edgar Douglas Adrian in 1934. Soon afterwards, many groups specialized in the new method, particularly in the US, whereas interest remained more limited in France and Britain. A comparative analysis of the rise of electroencephalography has certainly to account for such national differences, but the trajectory of the implementation of this technology calls for an investigation of local research cultures in order to identify units of productivity and to understand the dynamics along this trajectory.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.212 · 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