MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124874794 · doi:10.1155/2000/310198

Why Read the Classics?

2000· article· en· W2124874794 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Studies and Philology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the editorial staff of the Canadian Respiratory Journal , I extend our best wishes for the New Year, and heartfelt thanks to everyone who has helped the Journal establish itself in the competitive field of quality, peer‐reviewed publications in chest medicine. It may seem odd to start the new millennium with an editorial eulogizing the past, but even in these ′postmodern′ days of chaos, complexity and ordered unpredictability, the past can be seen to have a huge influence on the present and the future. The importance of looking back on work that has influenced our present views on chest medicine, and why, was the main reason for the series inaugurated in the present issue ‐ ′Modern Classics Revisited′ (pages 71‐76).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.178 · 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