Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract This book began its life in October 2006 on the back of an envelope, during a flight between Toronto and London, when it occurred to two of the editors that there was no good recent review of the interrelationships between the sciences of memory and of epilepsy, despite their many interesting connections. The back of the envelope was translated, with unexpected ease, into a plan for a small expert meeting with around 50 participants which took place on 3–6 May 2009 at Dartington Hall in Devon, England. We had some anxieties about transporting delegates from North America and Europe to this remote, rural location, but the gods of weather and the airways proved to be on our side, and medieval Dartington, recently home to a progressive school and a centre for the arts in South West England, provided a welcoming and attractive destination for our speakers. A local ceilidh band helped to build team spirit, and a local organic restaurant—Riverford’s Field Kitchen—supplied a pleasingly incongruous location for a memorable conference dinner.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.465 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".