MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3199980419 · doi:10.1183/13993003.02020-2021

Reply to: When adopting Global Lung Function Initiative reference values, can we also adapt them to a local context as needed?

2021· letter· en· W3199980419 on OpenAlexaff
Sanja Stanojevic, Brendan Cooper, Nicole Filipow, Jane Kirkby, Gregg L Ruppel, Irene Steenbruggen, Bruce Thompson, Graham L. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Lung functionFunction (biology)Balance (ability)Pulmonary function testingComputer scienceMedicineLungGeographyRadiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBiologyInternal medicineProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global Lung Function Initiative reference equations help to standardise interpretation of pulmonary function tests; however, there is a need to balance precision and generalisability with the uncertainty of interpretationhttps://bit.ly/3iheRFv

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0520.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.016

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory Journal→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→