MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246775156 · doi:10.31227/osf.io/zdtkr

Model Vancouover, Easy For Making Manuscript

2019· preprint· id· W4246775156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dika Adriani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageid
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Model Vancouver merupakan salah satu model dalam penulisan sitasi sebuah manuskrip. Tujuan membuat manuskrip ini adalah untuk menulis panduan dalam membuat manuskrip dengan teknik penulisan model Vancouver serta melatih kemampuan dalam membuat sebuah manuskrip. Metode penulisan manuskrip ini menggunakan teknik End Note X7. Hasil dari manuskrip ini diperoleh manuskrip yang berisikan tentang langkah mudah dalam membuat manuskrip dengan model voncouver menggunakan End Note X7

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3540.252

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207