MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206658935 · doi:10.29173/writingacrossuofa19

Court Case of Cow v. Plant

2021· article· en· W4206658935 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A Tribute To

Bibliographic record

VenueWriting across the University of Alberta · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Contract Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactoseLactose intoleranceJuryArgument (complex analysis)Cow milkFood scienceAgricultural scienceMathematicsLawMedicineBiologyPolitical scienceEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following is a script from a court proceeding. The case is about whether plant-based milks or cow’s milk is better. There are two speakers; one who will be representing cow’s milk and one who will be representing plant-based milks. The representatives will be making their arguments based on the milk’s nutrition, environmental impact as well as digestibility for those with dairy intolerances. At the end, the jury consider each representative’s argument to determine which milk is better. The judge will take home the better milk to share with her lactose intolerance husband.

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)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0230.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWriting across the University of AlbertaSame topicEuropean and International Contract LawFrench-language works237,207