MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of publicly available linear MRI stereotaxic registration techniques

2018· article· en· W2793958915 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersNIH Blueprint for Neuroscience ResearchNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNIH Office of the DirectorNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéAvid RadiopharmaceuticalsAlzheimer's AssociationBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaGE HealthcareNational Institutes of HealthH. Lundbeck A/SU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationServierRocheMcGill UniversityAstraZeneca CanadaF. Hoffmann-La RocheGovernment of CanadaGlaxoSmithKlineEli Lilly and CompanyGenentechMcDonnell Center for Systems NeuroscienceNovartisInnogeneticsCanada Foundation for InnovationAbbott CanadaPfizerJohnson and JohnsonSchering-PloughAbbVie
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNuclear medicineMedicine

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.327 · 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