MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108755669 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.100953

"Caffeinating" children and youth

2010· editorial· en· W2108755669 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noni MacDonald, M. B. Stanbrook, P. C. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2010
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaffeineLabellingSittingCola (plant)Computer scienceAdvertisingMedicineFood scienceEnvironmental healthPsychologyBusinessChemistryPsychiatryPathologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although many of us regularly enjoy tea, coffee and other caffeinated beverages, most of us have enough common sense not to willingly allow children to consume 10 cans of cola in one sitting — the amount of caffeine in 500 mL of some energy drinks. [1][1] Owing to inadequate labelling requirements

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.269
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; 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207