MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400453409 · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104620

Limitations of recent cellulose studies: How overzealous dispersion technique, fluorescence labeling and interpretation limit the findings of recent safety assessments for cellulose materials

2024· article· en· W4400453409 on OpenAlexaff
Yueyang Zhang, Douglas M. Fox, Kimberly J. Ong, James D. Ede, Christie M. Sayes, Heli Kangas, Leppänen Ilona, Michael T. Goergen, Robert J. Moon, Jo Anne Shatkin

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Food Science & Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCelluloseInterpretation (philosophy)Dispersion (optics)Computer scienceLimit (mathematics)FluorescenceMaterials scienceMathematicsOpticsPhysicsChemical engineeringEngineeringProgramming language

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Food Science & TechnologySame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207