MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242355237 · doi:10.14198/raei.2003.16.25

Reviews

2003· article· en· W4242355237 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Revista alicantina De estudios ingleses

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Iberian Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtSociolinguisticsHumanitiesArt historyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contiene: Jussawalla, Feroza (2003): Chiffon Saris. Toronto: TSAR Publications, 92 pages / Reviewed by Silvia Caporale Bizzini; Fernández Álvarez; M. Pilar and Antón Teodoro Manrique (2002): Antología de la literatura nórdica antigua. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad / Reviewed by José R. Belda; Schwarlz, Anja (2001). The (im)possibilities of machine translation. Peter Lang. Frankfurt am Main. 323 pages / Reviewed by Silvia Borrás Giner; Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (2003): Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. Great Britain: Pearson Education, 260pages / Reviewed by Sara Ponce Serrano.Contiene: Jussawalla, Feroza (2003): Chiffon Saris. Toronto: TSAR Publications, 92 pages / Reviewed by Silvia Caporale Bizzini; Fernández Álvarez; M. Pilar and Antón Teodoro Manrique (2002): Antología de la literatura nórdica antigua. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad / Reviewed by José R. Belda; Schwarlz, Anja (2001). The (im)possibilities of machine translation. Peter Lang. Frankfurt am Main. 323 pages / Reviewed by Silvia Borrás Giner; Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (2003): Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. Great Britain: Pearson Education, 260pages / Reviewed by Sara Ponce Serrano.

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)0.007
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5360.474

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Alicantina de Estudios InglesesSame topicMedieval Iberian StudiesFrench-language works237,207