MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403366535 · doi:10.1038/s42003-024-07011-w

Aligning consciousness science and U.S. funding agency priorities

2024· article· en· W4403366535 on OpenAlexafffund
Nora Bradford, Angela K. Shen, Brian Odegaard, Megan A. K. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and History of Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersTempleton World Charity FoundationCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)ConsciousnessFunding AgencyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsPublic administrationSociologySocial sciencePublic relationsEngineeringEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Comment reviews a recent workshop that aimed at improving funding outcomes for consciousness science researchers. The most essential pieces of advice for early career consciousness scientists are summarized.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0170.015
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0190.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainIncentives
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicPhilosophy and History of ScienceFrench-language works237,207