Workshops of the eighth international brain–computer interface meeting: BCIs: the next frontier
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.016 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".