MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783127824 · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2017.12.003

An impact factor for the 60 candles of the Annals

2018· editorial· en· W2783127824 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Pérénnou, A. Thévenon, François Rannou, Philippe Azouvi, Emmanuel Coudeyre, G. Amarenco, Jean-Marie Casillas, Sylvie Nadeau, Isabelle Laffont, Olivier Rémy‐Néris, A. Yelnik, P.-A. Joseph, Gilles Rode

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnalsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyArtClassics

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.158
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.158
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0100.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.009

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.363 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicAcademic Publishing and Open AccessFrench-language works237,207