MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607502023 · doi:10.1038/laban.1260

Response to Protocol Review Scenario: Before the amendment

2017· letter· en· W2607502023 on OpenAlexaff
Chereen Collymore, Rhain Louis

Bibliographic record

VenueLab Animal · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)AmendmentComputer scienceMedicineLawPolitical scienceAlternative medicine

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0160.007
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.1920.085
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.029

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueLab AnimalSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207