MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377221031 · doi:10.1007/s00221-023-06642-5

Correction to: Reaction of human walking to transient block of vision: analysis in the context of indirect, referent control of motor actions

2023· erratum· en· W4377221031 on OpenAlexaff
Otella Shoja, Farzad Towhidkhah, Hamidollah Hassanlouei, Mindy F. Levin, Alireza Bahramian, Sylvie Nadeau, Lei Zhang, Anatol G. Feldman

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Brain Research · 2023
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Canadian institutionsInstitut de Readaptation Gingras Lindsay de MontrealMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferentContext (archaeology)Motor controlNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceCognitive scienceMedicinePhilosophyBiologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.055

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.374 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueExperimental Brain ResearchSame topicTechnology and Human Factors in Education and HealthFrench-language works237,207