MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Community challenge towards consensus on characterization of biological tissue: C4Bio’s first findings

2025· article· en· W4415314262 on OpenAlexaff
Nele Famaey, Heleen Fehervary, Yoann Lafon, Ali Akyildiz, Silke Dreesen, Karine Bruyère-Garnier, Jean‐Marc Allain, Marta Alloisio, Alejandro Aparici-Gil, Chiara Catalano, Fanette Chassagne, Snehal Chokhandre, Kimberly Crevits, Hanneke Crielaard, Eoghan M. Cunnane, Connor V. Cunnane, Karen De Leener, Amisha Desai, Rob Driessen, Mona Eskandari, Sam Weiss Evans, Christian Gasser, Marc Gebhardt, Birgit Glasmacher, Gerhard A. Holzapfel, Mikel Isasi, Louise M. Jennings, Sascha Kurz, Sara Leal‐Marin, Pauline Lecomte‐Grosbras, Annie Morch, John J. Mulvihill, Fulufhelo Ṋemavhola, Thanyani Pandelani, Salvatore Pasta, Estefanía Peña, Baptiste Pierrat, Heidi‐Lynn Ploeg, Stanislav Polzer, Manuel K. Rausch, David Schwarz, Hazel R. C. Screen, Selda Sherifova, Gerhard Sommer, Shengzhang Wang, D. Walsh, Thierry Marchal, Liesbet Geris

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersOnderzoeksraad, KU LeuvenKU LeuvenFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsProtocol (science)Consistency (knowledge bases)Diversity (politics)Sample (material)Materials testingTest (biology)Characterization (materials science)

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)0.173
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1730.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.021
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0090.019
Research integrity0.0210.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiomechanicsSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207