MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comment on “Theoretical Confirmation of the Low Experimental <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3</mml:mn><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn>3</mml:mn><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>f</mml:mi></mml:math>-Value Ratio in Fe xvii”

2017· article· lv· W2765837663 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Wang, Per Jönsson, J. Ekman, Tomas Brage, Chong Yang Chen, Charlotte Froese Fischer, Gediminas Gaigalas, Michel Godefroid

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Comment on the Letter by Mendoza and Bautista [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 163002 (2017)PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.118.163002].

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0530.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.029

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicHigh-Energy Particle Collisions ResearchFrench-language works237,207