Workshops of the eighth international brain–computer interface meeting: BCIs: the next frontier
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Eighth International Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Meeting was held June 7-9th, 2021 in a virtual format. The conference continued the BCI Meeting series' interactive nature with 21 workshops covering topics in BCI (also called brain-machine interface) research. As in the past, workshops covered the breadth of topics in BCI. Some workshops provided detailed examinations of specific methods, hardware, or processes. Others focused on specific BCI applications or user groups. Several workshops continued consensus building efforts designed to create BCI standards and increase the ease of comparisons between studies and the potential for meta-analysis and large multi-site clinical trials. Ethical and translational considerations were both the primary topic for some workshops or an important secondary consideration for others. The range of BCI applications continues to expand, with more workshops focusing on approaches that can extend beyond the needs of those with physical impairments. This paper summarizes each workshop, provides background information and references for further study, presents an overview of the discussion topics, and describes the conclusion, challenges, or initiatives that resulted from the interactions and discussion at the workshop.
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 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it