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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.024

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; 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
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