MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098202470 · doi:10.1109/mssc.2013.2254632

Through the Looking Glass?Part 2 of 2: Trend Tracking for ISSCC 2013 [ISSCC Trends]

2013· article· en· W2098202470 on OpenAlexaff
K.C. Smith, Alice Wang, Laura Chizuko Fujino

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Solid-State Circuits Magazine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAge of Information Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWirelineComputer scienceTelecommunicationsMultimediaWirelessElectrical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intent of the second part of this article is to share a sampling of the views held by the diverse group of experts represented by the International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) 2013 Energy Efficient Digital; High Performance Digital; Technology Directions; Imagers, MEMS, Medical, and Displays (IMMD); and Memory program subcommittees. We published the findings of the subcommittees on Analog, Data Converters, RF, Wireline, and Wireless subcommittees in the Winter 2013 issue of this magazine.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.035

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Solid-State Circuits MagazineSame topicAge of Information OptimizationFrench-language works237,207