Bibliographic record
Abstract
Imagine you have just found out that a loved one, such as a parent, sibling, or close friend, suffers from a rare and deadly genetic disorder. There are currently no successful mainstream treatments for this disorder. However, the doctor mentions a highly experimental treatment that would involve removing bone marrow from a healthy donor once a month for a full year and could potentially cause permanent damage to them. It turns out that you are a match. How would you make your decision regarding treatment? Most individuals would suggest leaving it to the doctor’s discretion, but because it is your body, it is ultimately your choice. You attempt to do further research on the internet but end up confused and frustrated. How will you ultimately decide as to whether you should give informed consent for the procedure?
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 | 0.327 | 0.524 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.060 | 0.065 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
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".