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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the evaluation and optimization of the preprocessing steps for blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This technique indirectly measures changes in local neuronal firing rates by measuring associated changes in deoxy-hemoglobin concentrations in nearby blood vessels. Based on the existing literature, it is impossible to make conclusive statements about the optimal algorithm and software implementations for any single preprocessing step, let alone entire pipelines. The author believes that the present focus on the technological testing of preprocessing steps should be balanced by approaches that test the pipeline. This should include all interactions measured using metrics that are closely linked to research and diagnostic questions addressed at the end of the processing pipeline. The goal is to avoid single expedient or default pipelines by developing a framework capable of potentially testing thousands of possible pipeline implementations per dataset. To achieve this goal, researchers depend on recent developments in software tools for managing neuroimaging workflows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it