MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402507667 · doi:10.1039/d4fd00153b

Spiers Memorial Lecture: How to do impactful research in artificial intelligence for chemistry and materials science

2024· article· en· W4402507667 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFaraday Discussions · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchStructural Genomics ConsortiumVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Field (mathematics)Computer scienceDiversity (politics)Maturity (psychological)Artificial intelligenceChemistryData scienceSociologyPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning has been pervasively touching many fields of science. Chemistry and materials science are no exception. While machine learning has been making a great impact, it is still not reaching its full potential or maturity. In this perspective, we first outline current applications across a diversity of problems in chemistry. Then, we discuss how machine learning researchers view and approach problems in the field. Finally, we provide our considerations for maximizing impact when researching machine learning for chemistry.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.342 · 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