MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046569401 · doi:10.1017/s1431927620019078

Microscopy and Image Processing Recordkeeping: Never Again Lose Track of Your Metadata

2020· article· en· W3046569401 on OpenAlexaff
François Robert, Nicolas Piché, Mike Marsh

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataTrack (disk drive)Action (physics)Computer scienceImage (mathematics)Content (measure theory)Computer graphics (images)DatabaseWorld Wide WebComputer visionOperating systemPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

François Robert, Nicolas Piché, Mike Marsh; Microscopy and Image Processing Recordkeeping: Never Again Lose Track of Your Metadata, Microscopy and Microana

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)0.157
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.628
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1570.628
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0210.023
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0260.021
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0070.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.067

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 head0.399
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.067 · 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
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207