MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313429210 · doi:10.1017/s0962728600008782

Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues, Third Edition V Monamy (2017). Published by Cambridge University Press, University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, UK. 136 pages Paperback (ISBN: 978-1-316-61494-5). Price £17.99.

2018· article· en· W4313429210 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia V. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Welfare · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceMedia studiesHistorySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues, Third Edition V Monamy (2017). Published by Cambridge University Press, University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, UK. 136 pages Paperback (ISBN: 978-1-316-61494-5). Price £17.99. - Volume 27 Issue 1

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.053

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal WelfareSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207