MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399831125 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.12173925

ACTRIS PPP D5.1: Documentation on technical concepts and requirements for ACTRIS Observational Platforms

2018· report· en· W4399831125 on OpenAlexaff
Ulla Wandinger, Arnoud Apituley, Thomas Blumenstock, Nicolas Bukowiecki, Jean‐Pierre Cammas, Paul Connolly, Martine De Mazière, Bart Dils, Markus Fiebig, Evelyn Freney, Martin Gallagher, Sophie Godin‐Beekmann, Philippe Goloub, Martin Gysel‐Beer, Martial Haeffelin, Frank Hase, Markus Hermann, Hartmut Herrmann, Tuija Jokinen, Mika Komppula, Dagmar Kubistin, Bavo Langerock, Heikki Lihavainen, N. Mihalopoulos, Paolo Laj, Cathrine Lund Myhre, Emmanuel Mathieu, Stephan Mertes, Ottmar Möhler, Lucia Mona, Doina Nicolae, Ewan O’Connor, Mathias Palm, Gelsomina Pappalardo, Andréa Pazmiño, Tuukka Petäjä, Sabine Philippin, C. Plaß-Dülmer, Berhard Pospichal, Jean Philippe Putaud, Stefan Reimann, Franz Röhrer, H.W.J. Russchenberg, Karine Sellegri, R. Steinbrecher, Frank Stratmann, Ralf Sussmann, Dominik van Pinxteren, Michel Van Roozendaël, Corinne Vigouroux, C. J. Walden, Robert Wegener, Alfred Wiedensohler

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationObservational studyComputer scienceBusinessEngineering managementEngineeringMedicineProgramming languageInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document aims at providing the description of technical concepts and requirements for ACTRISObservational Platforms.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.096

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207