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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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
VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2023
Typebook
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstCity, University of LondonNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyLa Rochelle UniversitéNational Institute of InformaticsIndian Institute of Science Education and Research MohaliUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesNational Institute of Technology HamirpurUniversité de LyonMasarykova UniverzitaUral Federal UniversityUniversité de NantesStockholms UniversitetInstitut National des Sciences Appliquées de LyonUniversität Duisburg-EssenUniversità di PisaTechnische Universität BerlinBauhaus-Universität WeimarUniversidad de GranadaUniversità di BolognaUniversität RegensburgUniversitetet i BergenUniversity of WindsorTechnische Universität WienRadboud UniversiteitUniversity of WaterlooCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationOrta Doğu Teknik ÜniversitesiInstituto Superior TécnicoUniversité de Bretagne OccidentaleTsinghua UniversityChinese Academy of SciencesBirkbeck, University of LondonUniversidade de LisboaRenmin University of ChinaUniversität InnsbruckTechnische Universiteit DelftRégion NormandieUniversity of MinnesotaTU Graz, Internationale Beziehungen und MobilitätsprogrammeUniversiteit UtrechtRMIT UniversityHaute école Spécialisée de Suisse OccidentaleUniversity of SouthamptonUniversidade da CoruñaIstituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'InformazioneUniversidad Nacional de Educación a DistanciaUniversiteit LeidenYork UniversityUniversity of GlasgowUniversität PassauUniversidade do PortoDublin City UniversityPolitecnico di TorinoFriedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaUniversitetet i StavangerUniversity of ReginaUniversité Grenoble AlpesUniversity of Southern MaineCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of RoehamptonNorges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige UniversitetSun Yat-sen UniversityUniversiteit van AmsterdamUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaUniversità degli Studi di CagliariAix-Marseille UniversitéUniversity of WolverhamptonUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisChinese University of Hong KongAalborg UniversitetKaiser PermanenteIndian Institute of Technology KharagpurIndian Institute of ScienceQatar UniversityUniversidad Autónoma de MadridUniversity of TsukubaGeorgetown UniversityUniversitatea din BucureștiUniversità degli Studi di PadovaZürcher Hochschule für Angewandte WissenschaftenJohns Hopkins UniversityIndian National Science Academy
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalState (computer science)Artificial intelligenceProgramming language
Abstract
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
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.
metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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.
Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itQuick stats
Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno