Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent article on the front page of our local newspaper carried the arresting title, ‘ “Landmark Breakthrough” in Breast Cancer Research’ (Vancouver Sun , 2007, p. 1). The article, which described research findings regarding gene mutations that lead to breast cancer, proclaimed that the discovery could, in the future, have major positive implications for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. The following day, the Globe and Mail (2007, p. L.4), a national daily newspaper, carried an article entitled, ‘New Cancer Genes are Low-risk’. This article emphasized that these gene mutations were actually ‘common’ and ‘relatively low-hazard’, meaning that ‘women who have them run a comparatively small risk of developing cancer’. Because the genes are so common and low-risk, the article concluded, there may not be any benefits achieved by screening individuals. This article was published on the fourth page of the ‘Life’ section of the newspaper. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".