MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231580942 · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2020.02.008

Insights into the April 2020 Issue of the Journal of Endodontics

2020· editorial· en· W4231580942 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Azarpazhooh, Aníbal Diogenes, Ashraf Fouad, Gerald Glickman, Mo Kang, Anil Kishen, Linda Levin, Robert Roda, Christine Sedgley, Franklin R. Tay, Kenneth Hargreaves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endodontics · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPlant-based Medicinal Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndodonticsReading (process)Library scienceMedicineDentistryEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0140.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.011

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.363 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndodonticsSame topicPlant-based Medicinal ResearchFrench-language works237,207