MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625561560 · doi:10.1188/17.onf.401-402

Team Science and Big Brains

2017· article· en· W2625561560 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Panel discussionMedicineMedical educationTask (project management)ManagementWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, I was honored with the task of moderating a session at the Oncology Nursing Society's 42nd Annual Congress in Denver, Colorado. The panel discussion, "Team Science: A Discussion With the Experts," was described as an opportunity to learn about team science implementation in the conduct of cancer research. The panel members were leaders in oncology research. As the session was about to begin, I looked over at the panelists and decided that this session should have been called "The Big Brains Session" because the panelists are giants in the field. And yes, I was just a little intimidated to be posing questions to the panel, not to mention moderating their discussion. .

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.438
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207