MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412794959 · doi:10.1126/science.adu8449

Advancing science- and evidence-based AI policy

2025· article· en· W4412794959 on OpenAlexaff
Rishi Bommasani, Sanjeev Arora, Jennifer Chayes, Yejin Choi, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Li Fei-Fei, Daniel E. Ho, Dan Jurafsky, Oluwasanmi Koyejo, Hima Lakkaraju, Arvind Narayanan, Alondra Nelson, Emma Pierson, Joëlle Pineau, Scott Singer, Gaël Varoquaux, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, Ion Stoica, Percy Liang, Dawn Song

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScience policyScientific evidenceReal world evidenceEvidence-based policyData sciencePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsManagement scienceComputer scienceEpistemologyPublic administrationEconomicsMedicineEngineeringPhilosophyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy must be informed by, but also facilitate the generation of, scientific evidence.

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)0.185
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.357
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1850.357
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.026
Scholarly communication0.0240.030
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0360.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.372 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207