MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321128372 · doi:10.5298/1081-5937-50.04.03

SPECIAL ISSUE: Maurice Barry Sterman: What Makes Him Great

2022· article· en· W4321128372 on OpenAlexaff
Lynda Thompson, Robert P. Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofeedback · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsADD CentreCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychophysiologyField (mathematics)PsychoanalysisNeurofeedbackPsychologySociologyEngineering ethicsNeuroscienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article shares personal reflections on the influence that Maurice Barry Sterman has had on the field of neurofeedback and on the personal lives and careers of two recruits to the field, a psychologist and a neurologist, both of whom pivoted from traditional careers to learn about applied psychophysiology. They comment on the scientific rigor of his work and, additionally, share personal anecdotes that give a glimpse of the man behind the science.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0200.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.016

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofeedbackSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207