MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106881952 · doi:10.1007/s12551-020-00777-3

Biophysical Reviews: 2020—looking back, going forward

2020· editorial· en· W3106881952 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Damien Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueBiophysical Reviews · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Monitoring and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNuclear PhysicsUniversidad Nacional de QuilmesUniversity of Cape TownUniversidad de la República UruguayUniversidade de LisboaRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteMassey UniversityUniversity of TokyoWaseda UniversityTsinghua UniversityUniversity of GlasgowVrije Universiteit AmsterdamUniversity of MiamiYork UniversityUniversità degli Studi di Milano
KeywordsMembrane biologyBiology

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0210.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.031

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBiophysical ReviewsSame topicEnvironmental Monitoring and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207