MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404571206 · doi:10.1038/s41566-025-01681-6

Consensus statement on Brillouin light scattering microscopy of biological materials

2025· preprint· en· W4404571206 on OpenAlexafffund
Pierre Bouvet, Carlo Bevilacqua, Yogeshwari S. Ambekar, Giuseppe Antonacci, Joshua K. Au, Silvia Caponi, Sophie Chagnon‐Lessard, J. Czarske, Thomas Dehoux, D. Fioretto, Yujian Fu, Thorsten Hamann, Dag Heinemann, Torsten Jähnke, Hubert Jean-Ruel, Irina V. Kabakova, Kristie J. Koski, Nektarios Koukourakis, David Krause, Salvatore La Cavera, Timm Landes, Jinhao Li, Jérémie Margueritat, M. Mattarelli, Michael M. Monaghan, Darryl R. Overby, Fernando Pérez-Cota, Emanuele Pontecorvo, Robert Prevedel, Giancarlo Ruocco, J. R. Sandercock, Giuliano Scarcelli, F. Scarponi, Claudia Testi, Péter Török, Lucie Vovard, Wolfgang J. Weninger, Vladislav V. Yakovlev, Seok Hyun Yun, Jitao Zhang, Francesca Palombo, A. Bilenca, Kareem Elsayad

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Photonics · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityLightMachinery (Canada)
FundersDivision of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport SystemsDivision of Materials ResearchU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilDeutsches Zentrum für LungenforschungMedizinische Universität WienMinistry of Education, IndiaUniversität WienNanyang Technological UniversityDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Research FoundationEuropean CommissionNational Institutes of HealthCanada Research ChairsRoyal Academy of EngineeringNational Science FoundationCancer Research UKAustrian Science FundBiomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsStatement (logic)OpticsComputer scienceSpectrometerComparabilityLight scatteringScatteringMedical physicsPhysicsMathematics

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0110.009
Research integrity0.0490.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.010

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.352 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations25
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature PhotonicsSame topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207