MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408275958 · doi:10.1038/s41593-025-01880-y

Consciousness or pseudo-consciousness? A clash of two paradigms

2025· article· en· W4408275958 on OpenAlexaff
Giulio Tononi, Larissa Albantakis, Leonardo S. Barbosa, Mélanie Boly, Chiara Cirelli, Renzo Comolatti, Francesco Ellia, Graham Findlay, Adenauer G. Casali, Matteo Grasso, Andrew Haun, Jeremiah Hendren, Erik Hoel, Christof Koch, Alexander Maier, William H. Marshall, Marcello Massimini, William GP Mayner, Masafumi Oizumi, Joanna Szczotka, Naotsugu Tsuchiya, Alireza Zaeemzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsciousnessNeurosciencePsychologyCognitive scienceNeuroscientistCognitive psychologyCentral nervous system

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.021
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Domainnot available
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

Citations30
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207