MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919686595 · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqy344

Good practice in food-related neuroimaging

2018· article· en· W2919686595 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A.M. Smeets, Alain Dagher, Todd A. Hare, Stephanie Kullmann, Laura Nynke van der Laan, Russell A. Poldrack, Hubert Preißl, Dana M. Small, Eric Stice, Maria G. Veldhuizen

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersSeventh Framework ProgrammeNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersEuropean Commission
KeywordsNeuroimagingFunctional magnetic resonance imagingFunctional neuroimagingPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscience

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.

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)0.115
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.367
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1150.367
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0160.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.375 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations66
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207