MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304185479 · doi:10.1038/s42254-022-00518-3

On scientific understanding with artificial intelligence

2022· review· en· W4304185479 on OpenAlexafffund
Mario Krenn, Robert Pollice, Si Yue Guo, Matteo Aldeghi, Alba Cervera-Lierta, Pascal Friederich, Gabriel dos Passos Gomes, Florian Häse, Adrián Jinich, AkshatKumar Nigam, Zhenpeng Yao, Alán Aspuru‐Guzik

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Reviews Physics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoAustrian Science FundSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachComputer scienceFunction (biology)Perspective (graphical)Field (mathematics)Data scienceOracleArtificial intelligenceManagement scienceEngineeringSociologyMathematicsSocial science

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.631
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations348
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature Reviews PhysicsSame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207