MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896087281 · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.029

Continued need for non-human primate neuroscience research

2018· letter· en· W2896087281 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anna S. Mitchell, Alexander Thiele, Christopher I. Petkov, Angela Roberts, Trevor W. Robbins, Wolfram Schultz, Roger Lemon

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Biology · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsNon human primateNeurosciencePrimateBiologyHuman brainHuman researchNon-humanBrain functionComplement (music)Human healthFunction (biology)PsychologyCognitive scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroscience research in non-human primates (NHPs) has delivered fundamental knowledge about human brain function as well as some valuable therapies that have improved the lives of human patients with a variety of brain disorders. Research using NHPs, although it is facing serious challenges, continues to complement studies in human volunteers and patients, and will continue to be needed as the burdens of mental health problems and neurodegenerative diseases increase. At the same time, research into the 3Rs is helping to ameliorate the harms experienced by NHPs in experimental procedures, allowing the effective combination of optimal welfare conditions for the NHPs and high quality research.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0310.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.012

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 head0.420
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.095 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations48
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent BiologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207