LIVE*** Bahdi vs. Andrade Chavez: Fight Night - DAZN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bahdi vs. Andrade Chavez: Fight Night\n\nRed Owl Boxing arrives in Ontario, with a huge night of fights in the city of Toronto. Headlining the bill is home fighter Lucas Bahdi (12-0), who faces off with Diego Andrade Chavez (14-8-2) in a huge lightweight main attraction.\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\tCLICK HERE TO WATCH LIVE FREE\n\n\tCLICK HERE TO WATCH LIVE FREE\n\n\tCLICK HERE TO WATCH LIVE FREE\n\t\n\t\n\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\nΤhe CORD-19 dataset released by the team of Semantic Scholar1 anddg\nΤhe 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:sdg\n\nInfluence: 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.\nInfluence_alt: Citation-based measure reflecting the total impact of aD\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:sdgfdh\n\nInfluence: 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.sdgd\nInfluence_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.sdgf\n\nsafs 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.asdsg\n\nsf 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.sfb\nSocial 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).DG
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.286 | 0.170 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".