Bibliographic record
Abstract
D r e a m o r R e a l i t y ?Welcome to Issue 8 of Sciential!As mentioned in the last few issues, the COVID-19 pandemic has made it difficult for people to gather and collaborate.It has also demonstrated and reinforced the importance of effective science communication and fostering a more scientifically literate world.Despite these conditions, at Sciential, we have committed ourselves to sustaining the collaboration that the journal generates and to continuing our responsibility of communicating science effectively.Like all our issues, Issue 8 explores a variety of topics: the gender and sex differences of cardiovascular health; neuron potentiation; the feasibility of preventing aging; black hole thermodynamics; male body dysmorphia; non-small lung cell carcinomas; and the lack of accessibility in scientific lay summaries.We are excited to present to you the incredible work that undergraduate students at McMaster University have produced in these interesting research areas and disciplines.We would also like to take a moment to congratulate and thank our incredible team for their unwavering commitment and phenomenal work on this issue.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".