MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898807327 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99948-7

Reading Breath in Literature

2018· book· en· W2898807327 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur Rose, Stefanie Heine, Naya Tsentourou, Corinne Saunders, Peter J. Garratt

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave studies in literature, science and medicine · 2018
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersDurham UniversityWellcome Trust
KeywordsReading (process)Psychological interventionHistoryPsychologyLiteratureArtLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This open access book presents methods of investigating breath in literature through a series of interventions about the role it might play across genres and in historical and cultural areas of literary studies. It shows how the study of breath in literature can contribute to Medical Humanities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.009

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave studies in literature, science and medicineSame topicHistory of Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207