MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2130915922 · doi:10.1186/s12883-014-0204-1

The Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) study protocol: a cross-sectional, lifespan, multidisciplinary examination of healthy cognitive ageing

2014· article· en· W2130915922 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith A. Shafto, Lorraine K. Tyler, Marie Dixon, Jason R. Taylor, James B. Rowe, Rhodri Cusack, Andrew J. Calder, William D. Marslen‐Wilson, John Duncan, Tim Dalgleish, Richard N. Henson, Carol Brayne, Fiona E. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neurology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMedical Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesWellcome Trust
KeywordsCognitionNeurocognitiveCognitive flexibilityPsychologyNeuropsychologyCognitive declinePopulationFlexibility (engineering)MedicineGerontologyNeuroscienceDementiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.014
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.013

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.342 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations794
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Neurology→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→