MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3209875558 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14639634.v1

What do Psychology and Civil Engineering have in Common to Promote Well-Being and Excellence?

2021· preprint· en· W3209875558 on OpenAlexaff
Said M. Easa, Maureen J. Reed, Frank Russo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceParagraphWork (physics)Industrial and organizational psychologyLinkage (software)Engineering ethicsPolitical sciencePsychologyEngineeringSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[First paragraph description] Many people are probably not aware of the strong linkage between psychology and civil engineering. Psychology tools are used in many areas of civil engineering, some areas are old and some are recent. Other areas where psychology can play an important role are emerging. You may be surprised to know that almost half the psychologists, in the broader sense, work in areas related to civil engineering.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.017

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.406 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 topicOccupational Health and Safety Research→French-language works237,207→