MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240967958 · doi:10.1162/leon_a_00212

Wait

2011· article· fr· W4240967958 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Andreyev, Simon Overstall

Bibliographic record

VenueLeonardo · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsEmily Carr University of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationSearch engine optimizationComputer scienceWorld Wide WebDownloadInformation retrievalSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

August 01 2011 Wait Julie Andreyev, Julie Andreyev Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Simon Overstall Simon Overstall Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Julie Andreyev Simon Overstall Online Issn: 1530-9282 Print Issn: 0024-094X © 2011 Julie Andreyev and Simon Overstall2011 Leonardo (2011) 44 (4): 350–351. https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00212 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Julie Andreyev, Simon Overstall; Wait. Leonardo 2011; 44 (4): 350–351. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00212 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsLeonardo Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2011 Julie Andreyev and Simon Overstall2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7000.581

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeonardoSame topicAesthetic Perception and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207