MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W216221754 · doi:10.2172/1025097

EMSL Quarterly Highlights Report Second Quarter, Fiscal Year 2010 (January 1, 2010 through March 31, 2010)

2010· report· en· W216221754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Staci A. West, Mary Ann Showalter, Kristin L. Manke, Ross R. Carper, Julie G. Wiley, Mary T. Beckman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of EnergyBiological and Environmental ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNational laboratoryQuarter (Canadian coin)Fiscal yearEnvironmental researchWork (physics)Instrumentation (computer programming)Library scienceOperations researchEngineering managementData scienceEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementGeographyBusinessArchaeologyFinanceEngineering physicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL) is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national scientific user facility located at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland, Washington. EMSL is operated by PNNL for the DOE-Office of Biological and Environmental Research. At one location, EMSL offers a comprehensive array of leading-edge resources and expertise. Access to the instrumentation and expertise is obtained on a peer-reviewed proposal basis. Staff members work with researchers to expedite access to these capabilities. The "EMSL Quarterly Highlights Report" documents current research and activities of EMSL staff and users.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2210.254

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207