MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916233662 · doi:10.1080/17460441.2019.1582637

How to utilize academic research efforts in cancer drug discovery

2019· editorial· en· W2916233662 on OpenAlexafffund
Gervais Bérubé

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Discovery · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersEuropean Lead FactoryUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsDrug discoveryCancer drugsCancerDrugData scienceMedicineComputer scienceBiologyPharmacologyBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of a new medicine requires tremendous investments not only in research time but also in financial resources. When a drug reaches the market it is always the culminating effort of a ...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0010.006
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.361 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug DiscoverySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207