MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895092061 · doi:10.17705/1cais.04305

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation as a Set of Research Tools in NeuroIS: Opportunities and Methodological Considerations

2018· article· en· W2895092061 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Dumont, Sofia El Mouderrib, Hugo Théoret, Sylvain Sénécal, Pierre‐Majorique Léger

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the Association for Information Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrain stimulationSet (abstract data type)NeuroscienceComputer scienceField (mathematics)Data scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NeuroIS is a growing field that builds on neuroscience to improve the understanding of human interaction with information technologies and information systems. One can investigate causal relationships between brain activity patterns, cognitive processes, and behavior in a non-invasive way via using non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) tools, but researchers in the neuroIS community have yet to do so. We introduce NIBS, show how it can address caveats found in current research, describe the implementation of a NIBS protocol, and assess what these tools can bring to the neuroIS field.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.542
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207