MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2467726156 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22550

How do you write and present research well? 14—Favour images over text in graphical abstracts

2016· article· en· W2467726156 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Paul A. Patience, Daria C. Boffito, Gregory S. Patience

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFrame (networking)Line (geometry)GraphPresentation (obstetrics)Computer scienceComputer graphics (images)Information retrievalMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceGeometryMedicineSurgeryTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Line weights in presentations are heavier than in journal articles. They also depend on frame dimensions—lines should be thicker for wider graphs. What line weight should frame a 70 mm graph for a paper (or poster)? For a presentation or graphical abstract?[1,2] (Multiple choices possible) Papers & Posters Presentations & GAs a hairline b 3 pt 6 pt c 0.75 pt 1.5 pt d 0.25 mm 0.25 mm e 0.01″ 0.02″

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0190.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2450.320

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicModel-Driven Software Engineering TechniquesFrench-language works237,207