MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789918530 · doi:10.1097/jfn.0000000000000188

Do You Have a Writing Mentor?

2018· article· en· W2789918530 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cindy Peternelj‐Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Nursing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic nursingMedical educationPsychologyMedicineNursingLibrary sciencePoison controlMedical emergencyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Author Affiliations: College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan. The author declares no conflict of interest. Correspondence: Cindy Peternelj-Taylor, RN, BScN, MSc, DF-IAFN, College of Nursing, University of Saskatchewan, 4214-104 Clinic Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 2Z4. E-mail: [email protected].

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3580.112

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic NursingSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207