MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Beyond consensus: Embracing heterogeneity in curated neuroimaging meta-analysis

2019· article· en· W2953332965 on OpenAlexafffund
Gia H. Ngo, Simon B. Eickhoff, Minh Nguyen, Günes Sevinc, Peter T. Fox, R. Nathan Spreng, B.T. Thomas Yeo

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Mental HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionHorizon 2020Ministry of Education, IndiaNational Research FoundationNational Medical Research CouncilNational Research Foundation SingaporeCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroimagingMeta-analysisSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceCognitive psychologyTask (project management)Domain (mathematical analysis)Independent component analysisPsychologyArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceMathematicsMedicine

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)0.506
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.766
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5060.766
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.020
Bibliometrics0.0130.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0150.017
Open science0.0120.013
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.220 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage→Same topicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies→French-language works237,207→