MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090678148 · doi:10.1080/09647040600550327

Introduction: Neuroscience in the Nobel Perspective

2006· article· en· W2090678148 on OpenAlexaff
Theodore L. Sourkes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the History of the Neurosciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)NeuroscienceCognitive scienceFoundation (evidence)PsychologyClinical neuroscienceNeurologyArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nobel Prizes for Physiology or Medicine have included a relatively large number of awards for work in the neurosciences, or for work construed to have made a contribution to neuroscience. These are recognized in this article by brief explanations of the particular contribution that warranted this magnificent (and munificent) award. The first prizes in neuroscience were awarded five years after the initiation of the Nobel Foundation's program. Up to 2005, 28 prizes have been awarded for achievements in neuroscience to 52 individuals.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.015

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the History of the NeurosciencesSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207