MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386526657 · doi:10.52294/001c.87678

How can we reduce the climate costs of OHBM? A vision for a more sustainable meeting

2023· article· en· W4386526657 on OpenAlexaff
Samira Epp, Heejung Jung, Valentina Borghesani, Milan Klöwer, Marie‐Eve Hoeppli, Maria Misiura, Elinor Thompson, Niall W. Duncan, Anne E Urai, Michele Veldsman, Sepideh Sadaghiani, Charlotte L. Rae

Bibliographic record

VenueAperture Neuro · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConferences and Exhibitions Management
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityCarbon footprintAction (physics)Climate changeEcological footprintEnvironmental resource managementBusinessPolitical sciencePsychologyEnvironmental scienceEcologyOceanographyGreenhouse gasGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By Samira Epp, Heejung Jung & 10 more. In this report, authored by the Sustainability and Environment Action Special Interest Group (SEA-SIG), we analysed the carbon footprint of previous Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) meetings.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.006

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAperture NeuroSame topicConferences and Exhibitions ManagementFrench-language works237,207