MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385549097 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2023.100377

Reply

2023· article· en· W4385549097 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bethany E. Higgins, Giovanni Montesano, David M. Wright, Ruth Hogg, David P. Crabb

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCity, University of LondonQueen's UniversityCentre for Public Health, Queen's University BelfastQueen's University BelfastSantenAllerganApellis Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Swain et al. for their interest in our work1 and for the chance to address some perceived statistical issues. Their main criticism pertains to our use of parametric survival analysis to estimate the parameters of a model describing changes in Rod intercept time (RIT) due to age and disease stage, which they define ‘questionable’. In their ‘correct’ interpretation of the results, they explain how our model describes the changes in the hazard rate of reaching the rod intercept among groups.

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)0.056
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0280.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.015

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreCommentary

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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology ScienceSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207