MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144515558 · doi:10.1021/cen-09809-feature18

Miranda Wang and Jeanny Yao

2020· article· en· W3144515558 on OpenAlex
Leigh Krietsch Boerner

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC&EN Global Enterprise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 11th grade, when most people are thinking about college, Miranda Wang and Jeanny Yao had plastic on their minds. During an environmental-club field trip in 2011, the two visited a waste transfer station in Vancouver, British Columbia, and had a life-changing experience. “We were shocked to see how much plastic was in the garbage” and that it wasn’t being recycled, Wang says. The trip set the women on a life course. Wang and Yao saw a need for some new kind of technology to process plastics, Wang says. So they built one. In 2015, they founded BioCellection, a Menlo Park, California, start-up focused on breaking down polyethylene waste and changing it into a usable commodity. The company is focusing on polyethylene, Wang and Yao say, because recycling technology for the popular plastics poly(ethylene terephthalate) and polystyrene already exists, but there’s a hole in the recycling landscape where polyethylene

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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