MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lab 2 - BIOL 2050 - Field training with plants.csv

2016· article· en· W2521853355 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Monitoring and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Field (mathematics)Field trainingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeographyEngineeringMathematicsOperations managementMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was conducted on September 21, 2016 in a woodlot at York University, Keele Campus, Toronto, ON, Canada by Pham Ha Phuong Do and Victor Suay Espi.<br>For data set #3, a random tree was selected, and 10 pairs of tree were randomly picked from the chosen tree. The distance between the trees in each pair was measured in meter by big measuring tape, and the diameters of each tree picked to pair with the chosen tree was measured in centimeter by a smaller pocket measuring tape. <br>To measure the distance between the trees, the measuring tape was used straight from the edge of the one tree to another. <br>The diameter of the trees was measured at approximately chest height of the main trunks.<br>*Note: Data set #4 and meta data are included in the same sheet, as cvs file doesn't allow multiple sheets in one file.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2970.006

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.161 · 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