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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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
VenueLanguage Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftIndiana University BloomingtonUniversité de LilleUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityWestern Sydney UniversityUniversità Degli Studi di Modena e Reggio EmilaUniversity of ReadingMax Planck Instituut voor PsycholinguïstiekUniversität LeipzigUniversiteit van TilburgUniversity of WashingtonRijksuniversiteit GroningenHögskolan DalarnaRoyal Holloway, University of LondonUniversitetet i OsloBrock UniversityGeorgia State UniversityTechnische Universität BraunschweigUniversità degli Studi di GenovaUniversity of Hawai'i at MānoaWaseda UniversityUniversität SalzburgUniversiteit GentNanyang Technological UniversityKansai UniversityAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgSan Francisco State UniversityDalhousie UniversityPeabody CollegeKanagawa UniversityStockholms UniversitetConcordia UniversityRadboud UniversiteitFlinders UniversityHeriot-Watt UniversityTemple UniversityUniversiteit UtrechtUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonUniversiteit van AmsterdamUtah State UniversityVictoria UniversityUniversity of New EnglandVictoria University of WellingtonNational University of SingaporeLingnan UniversityUniversity of HyderabadUniversità per Stranieri di PerugiaDe Montfort UniversityUniversity of South FloridaRikkyo UniversityUniversität WienUniversity of GreenwichZhejiang UniversityNottingham Trent UniversityKU LeuvenUniversity of New South WalesIowa State UniversityUniversity of PittsburghPomona CollegeMcGill UniversityUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaUniversity of BathUniversidad de MurciaUniversity of OxfordUniversity of TwenteUniversity of Hawai'iLehigh UniversityUniversity of Texas at El PasoUniversitat de BarcelonaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueKing's College LondonUniversity of UtahUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLouisiana State UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityUniversity of SydneyUniversität RegensburgUniversity of CincinnatiSalisbury UniversityKarlstads universitetUniversity of AlabamaGeorgetown UniversityItä-Suomen YliopistoMichigan State UniversityMax-Planck-Institut für Kognitions- und NeurowissenschaftenUniversité Catholique de LouvainUniversiteit LeidenGeorge Mason UniversityVanderbilt UniversityYork UniversityUniversitat Pompeu FabraNorthwestern UniversityFlorida State UniversityUniversity of Texas at AustinRice UniversityTrent UniversityPortland State UniversityUniversity College LondonHong Kong Baptist UniversitySingapore Management UniversityBoston College
KeywordsCitationLinguisticsPsychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPhilosophy
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.740
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itQuick stats
Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno