MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309985496 · doi:10.5264/foo.bar

Watch Laval vs Saskatchewan Live Free HS Football Game 25rd Nov 2022

2022· article· en· W4309985496 on OpenAlex
HS Football

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComputational and Text Analysis Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballAeronauticsEngineeringGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2022 High School Football Game , the 57th edition of the Canadian university football championship, is scheduled for November 26, 2022 at Western Alumni Stadium in London, Ontario. This is scheduled to be the first time that London will host the Vanier Cup\n\nWatch high school sports and events nationwide, live and on demand, via the NFHS Network. Stream regular season and playoffs online from anywhere \n\n \n\n\n\tCLICK HERE TO WATCH LIVE FREE\n\n\n \n\nEvent Details\nHigh School Football 2022\nDates: Friday, November 25, 2022\nTime: In Progress\n\nThe pinnacle of Canadian university football has been through a lot of firsts, best and worsts as well as funny moments over the past 57 years. The big game has been held in every condition — indoors, outdoor, snow, ice, rain, wind and frigid cold. The weather is supposed to be favourable when Laval and Saskatchewan take centre stage in the first Cup game played in London. Kickoff is Saturday at 1 p.m. at Western Alumni Stadium and, no matter how it turns out, the participants will have plenty of stories they will never forget. Here are 57 (give or take one or two) facts, stats and little tales in the game’s history\n\n \n\nThis dataset contains impact metrics and indicators for a set of publications that are related to the COVID-19 infectious disease and the coronavirus that causes it. It is based on:gdf\n\n Τhe CORD-19 dataset released by the team of Semantic Scholar1 anddg\n Τhe curated data provided by the LitCovid hub2.gd\n\nThese data have been cleaned and integrated with data from COVID-19-TweetIDs and from other sources (e.g., PMC). The result was dataset of 500,314 unique articles along with relevant metadata (e.g., the underlying citation network). We utilized this dataset to produce, for each article, the values of the following impact measures:\n\n Influence: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of an article. This is based on the PageRank3 network analysis method. In the context of citation networks, it estimates the importance of each article based on its centrality in the whole network. This measure was calculated using the PaperRanking (https://github.com/diwis/PaperRanking) library4.\n Influence_alt: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of an article. This is the Citation Count of each article, calculated based on the citation network between the articles contained in the BIP4COVID19 dataset.\n\n\n Popularity: Citation-based measure reflecting the current impact of an article. This is based on the AttRank5 citation network analysis method. Methods like PageRank are biased against recently published articles (new articles need time to receive their first citations). AttRank alleviates this problem incorporating an attention-based mechanism, akin to a time-restricted version of preferential attachment, to explicitly capture a researcher's preference to read papers which received a lot of attention recently. This is why it is more suitable to capture the current "hype" of an article.\n\n\n Popularity alternative: An alternative citation-based measure reflecting the current impact of an article (this was the basic popularity measured provided by BIP4COVID19 until version 26). This is based on the RAM6 citation network analysis method. Methods like PageRank are biased against recently published articles (new articles need time to receive their first citations). RAM alleviates this problem using an approach known as "time-awareness". This is why it is more suitable to capture the current "hype" of an article. This measure was calculated using the PaperRanking (https://github.com/diwis/PaperRanking) library4.\n Social Media Attention: The number of tweets related to this article. Relevant data were collected from the COVID-19-TweetIDs dataset. In this version, tweets between 23/6/22-29/6/22 have been considered from the previous dataset.\n\nWe provide five CSV files, all containing the same information, however each having its entries ordered by a different impact measure. All CSV files are tab separated and have the same columns (PubMed_id, PMC_id, DOI, influence_score, popularity_alt_score, popularity score, influence_alt score, tweets count).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.003

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.254 · 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