MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506084502 · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.06.006

Developing a framework for assessing chemical respiratory sensitization: A workshop report

2016· article· en· W2506084502 on OpenAlexaff
Colin M. North, Janine Ezendam, Jon A. Hotchkiss, Curtis C. Maier, Kohji Aoyama, Steve Enoch, Amber K. Goetz, Cynthia Graham, Ian Kimber, Antti Karjalainen, Juergen Pauluhn, Erwin Roggen, MaryJane K. Selgrade, Susan M. Tarlo, Connie L. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensitizationSkin sensitizationMedicineRisk assessmentProfiling (computer programming)Computational biologyBioinformaticsRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations58
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueRegulatory Toxicology and PharmacologySame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207