MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135138000 · doi:10.1016/j.coph.2012.08.005

Solving the lost in translation problem: Improving the effectiveness of translational research

2012· review· en· W2135138000 on OpenAlexafffund
Ceren Ergorul, Leonard A. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pharmacology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Eye InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGlaucoma Research Foundation
KeywordsNeuroprotectionTranslational researchTranslation (biology)Translational medicineMedicineNeuroscienceReplicatePreclinical researchAnimal modelIntensive care medicineComputer sciencePharmacologyMedical physicsBiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0130.029
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0130.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PharmacologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207