MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296395062 · doi:10.1188/15.onf.579

Clear as Glass

2015· editorial· en· W2296395062 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2015
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePublishingJoin (topology)Medical educationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, I was doing a PubMed search for a manuscript I was writing and noticed one or two articles that took up an entire page of the search engine; so many authors were listed that their names seemed to spill down my computer monitor and onto my desk. I am sure that many of you have seen this too. How is it possible that 50 or more authors could write one article? Of course the answer is simple—they did not all write the paper but were involved in the study reported on or work in the laboratory where a gene was sequenced. However, they were all cited as authors of the article.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.417 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207