MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404531019 · doi:10.14814/phy2.15726

Issue Information

2024· paratext· en· W4404531019 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Reports · 2024
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman auditory perception and evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Physiological SciencesHouston Methodist Research InstituteUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignNanjing Medical UniversityAalborg UniversitetTurun YliopistoChinese Academy of SciencesUniversity of QueenslandUniversity of BathYork UniversityUniversity of OtagoAugusta UniversityUniversity of North TexasMcMaster UniversityChongqing Normal UniversityWeill Cornell Medical CollegeLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenUniversity of BristolUniversity of KansasUniversity of LouisvilleYale UniversityUniversity of PittsburghOhio State UniversityRoy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of IowaWayne State UniversityUniversiteit StellenboschBrown University
KeywordsComputer scienceMedicineData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiological Reports is an online only, open access journal that will publish peer-reviewed research across all areas of basic, translational and clinical physiology and allied disciplines.Physiological Reports is a collaboration between The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society, and is therefore in a unique position to serve international physiology community through quick time to publication while upholding a quality standard of sound research that constitutes a useful contribution to the fi eld.Papers will be accepted solely on the basis of scientifi c rigor, adherence to technical and ethical standards, and evidence that the study is suffi ciently well-conceived and the data support the conclusions.Physiological Reports is interested in cellular and molecular studies as well as intact tissues, model organisms and translational studies.We welcome the work of biomedical scientists, whose studies incorporate physiological fi ndings.Papers with negative data or confi rmatory results are acceptable as long as they are well conceived.Papers concerned with modeling or new methods are acceptable as long as they are of physiological interest.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2030.597

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological ReportsSame topicHuman auditory perception and evaluationFrench-language works237,207