MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088226379 · doi:10.1016/s0969-8043(03)00060-5

An agreed statement on calculating lead concentration and uncertainty in XRF in vivo bone lead analysis

2003· letter· en· W2088226379 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Chettle, Michelle Arnold, Antonio Aro, David Fleming, V.S. Kondrashov, Fiona E. McNeill, Erin Moshier, H. Nie, Stephen J. Rothenberg, Ian Stronach, Andrew C. Todd

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Radiation and Isotopes · 2003
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Allison UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlfactory systemDementiaOlfactionAudiologyMedicineInternal medicinePhysiologyPsychologyEndocrinologyNeuroscienceDisease

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

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0760.077
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueApplied Radiation and IsotopesSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207