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 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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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