MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canadian Resources for Research Knowledge User Networks

2011· article· en· W639617778 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hugh Monteith

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Bioethics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsHydromantis Environmental Software Solutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus (optics)Knowledge managementOpen researchComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water-related research in Canada is being conducted through a number of research networks with knowledge-users accessing the information either in open research forums or through targeted research collaborations that have a specific focus. Many of the academic members of the research networks are involved in several networks. In a few instances, networks like the CWWA do not conduct actual research, but encourage the interaction of its members with the research community to shape the priorities of study.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.032
Science and technology studies0.0130.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1920.033

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 head0.436
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.039 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal BioethicsSame topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207