MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249290220 · doi:10.1002/adem.201300557

Editorial

2014· editorial· en· W4249290220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Engineering Materials · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Editorial boardPollockScope (computer science)Engineering ethicsComputer scienceLibrary scienceEngineeringHistoryArt historyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In last year's editorial, I talked about the disruptive developments occurring in engineering materials and how the scope of the field was becoming ever more diverse. This trend is clearly set to continue. Just recently, I attended the Materials Science & Technology conference in Montreal. Among the busiest symposia were additive manufacturing and aerospace materials; expect to see much more coverage of these topics in Advanced Engineering Materials in the coming year.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.041

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Engineering MaterialsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207