MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survey on Nano Technology

2018· article· en· W2788858881 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIndonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanotechnology research and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)NanotechnologySocietal impact of nanotechnologyIndustrial RevolutionEngineeringBusinessEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, Nanotechnology has become a reality of great concerns all over the world, which seeks constitutes serious about expanding the scope of applications and investments of this technique. In this paper, we have introduced nanotechnology, since it has become the first rank among the priorities of scientific research in the world, where the expanded universities, research centers and institutions seek to employ nanotechnology in new products, industries, and technology. We have discussed types of Nanomaterials in details and focused on the applications that use Nanotechnology. This paper confirms the view of scientists who look at this technique working as a component of the world's future, and a crucial factor that has led and will continue leading the world to a new industrial revolution

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.218 · 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