MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082642618 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00643376

The importance of reporting the distributional criteria of FA

2000· article· en· W2082642618 on OpenAlexaff
Sally Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral and Brain Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluctuating asymmetryAsymmetryMeaning (existential)PopulationPsychologyDemographyEvolutionary biologyBiologySociologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Not all of the studies cited in the target article as evidence that fluctuating asymmetry (FA) predicts male mating success demonstrate that the observed asymmetry is, in fact, FA. FA is a population-level pattern of differences between sides. Unless the population-level distributional criteria of bilateral traits are reported, the meaning of asymmetry in individuals is unknown.

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)0.211
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.747
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2110.747
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.264 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral and Brain SciencesSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207