MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943143480 · doi:10.1021/acsptsci.9b00022

The Fundamental Characteristics of a Translational Scientist

2019· editorial· en· W2943143480 on OpenAlexaff
C. Taylor Gilliland, Julia White, Barry Gee, Rosan Kreeftmeijer-Vegter, Florence Biétrix, Antón Ussi, Marián Hajdúch, Petr Kočiš, Nobuyoshi Chiba, Ryutaro Hirasawa, Makoto Suematsu, Justin S. Bryans, Stuart J. Newman, Matthew D. Hall, Christopher P. Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Pharmacology & Translational Science · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsCentre for Drug Research and Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranslational scienceTranslational researchField (mathematics)Engineering ethicsProcess (computing)Translational research informaticsTranslational medicinePosttranslational modificationComputer scienceManagement scienceData sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringSociologyMedicineSocial scienceChemistryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Translational science is defined as the field of investigation focused on understanding the scientific and operational principles underlying each step of the translational process. Further development of the field is advanced by describing the key desirable characteristics of individuals who seek to uncover these principles to increase the efficiency and efficacy of translation. The members of Translation Together, a newly launched international collaborative effort to advance translational innovation, present here a consensus representation of the fundamental characteristics of a translational scientist. We invite all stakeholders to contribute in the ongoing efforts to develop the field and educate the next generation of translational scientists.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0230.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.008

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.397 · 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
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

Citations87
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Pharmacology & Translational ScienceSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207