MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417617898 · doi:10.1177/026119290403201s95

Proposal for International Recognition, Support and Cooperation with the Internet Clearinghouse on the Three Rs (Altweb)

2004· article· en· W2417617898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa A. Libowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternatives to Laboratory Animals · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)The InternetBusinessPresentation (obstetrics)Resource (disambiguation)Project teamRedundancy (engineering)Knowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This presentation will focus on the establishment and current international scope of Altweb, the clearinghouse of resources and information about the Three Rs. The need for an international central reference point was established by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods workshop number 25, which was followed by the development and implementation of Altweb through a Project Team. The growth of the Project Team to include representatives from several European countries and Canada, in addition to widespread support in the USA, and the Project Team's role in shaping this important resource will be discussed, as well as the role Altweb will continue to play in spurring the development of information resources on the Three Rs at an international level. Ways of encouraging use and reducing redundancy with other information providers are explored. A proposal will be introduced to initiate annual meetings in the field of information resources.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0240.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.015

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.262 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlternatives to Laboratory AnimalsSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207