MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4248083434 · doi:10.3410/f.1061834.513772

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry?

2007· dataset· en· W4248083434 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2007
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorrySensitivity (control systems)Discrete choicePsychologyComputer scienceMachine learningEngineeringPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0090.003
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0730.069

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreDataset

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicEconomic and Environmental Valuation→French-language works237,207→