MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241067023 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100008532

Guidelines for Visual-Sensitive EEG Testing

2008· article· fr· W4241067023 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardizationReliability (semiconductor)MedicineElectroencephalographyAudiologyVisual inspectionComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high level of evidence does not exist for many aspects of testing for visual sensitivity. Evidenced-based studies are needed in several areas, including (i) reliability of LED-based stimulators, (ii) the most appropriate montages for displaying responses, (iii) testing during pregnancy, and (iv) the role of visual-sensitivity testing in the diagnosis of neurological disorders affecting the elderly and very elderly. Standardization of testing across the country will be an important step in filling the existing gaps of knowledge.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.024
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.194 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207