MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237654671 · doi:10.1093/analys/63.3.173

Solidity and impediment

2003· article· en· W4237654671 on OpenAlexaff
M. F. Fricke, P. Snowdon

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalysis · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidityLibrary scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Journal Article Solidity and impediment Get access Martin F. Fricke, Martin F. Fricke Trinity CollegeOxford OX1 3BH, UKmartin_fricke@yahoo.co.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Paul Snowdon Paul Snowdon University College LondonLondon WC1E 6BT, UKp.snowdon@ucl.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Analysis, Volume 63, Issue 3, July 2003, Pages 173–178, https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/63.3.173 Published: 01 July 2003

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.034
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalysisSame topicEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsFrench-language works237,207