MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118648520 · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr047

Generating Large-Scale Longitudinal Data Resources for Aging Research

2011· article· en· W2118648520 on OpenAlex
John Gallacher, Scott M. Hofer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)Longitudinal dataScale (ratio)Data scienceComputer scienceSample (material)BusinessGeographyMarketingData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The need for large studies and the types of large-scale data resources (LSDRs) are discussed along with their general scientific utility, role in aging research, and affordability. The diversification of approaches to large-scale data resourcing is described in order to facilitate their use in aging research. METHODS: The need for LSDRs is discussed in terms of (a) large sample size; (b) longitudinal design; (c) as platforms for additional investigator-initiated research projects; and (d) broad-based access to core genetic, biological, and phenotypic data. DISCUSSION: It is concluded that a "lite-touch, lo-tech, lo-cost" approach to LSDRs is a viable strategy for the development of LSDRs and would enhance the likelihood of LSDRs being established which are dedicated to the wide range of important aging-related issues.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.104 · 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