MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6901727419 · doi:10.60692/bp57x-fyq97

First CINP Research Fellowship for Early Careers: Bridging Scientific Goals and Professional Networking

2023· article· en· W6901727419 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicUndergraduate Neuroscience Education and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderpinningBridging (networking)Career developmentNeuropsychopharmacologyCareer Pathways

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participating in scientific conferences and professional networking support productivity in research. However, there are barriers for early career scientists to benefit from these activities. In 2023, the International College of Neuropsychopharmacology (CINP) Committee for Early Careers organised the first edition of the CINP Research Fellowship for Early Careers to support international collaboration of junior neuroscientists and facilitate in-person exchange between early career and senior investigators. The programme included online and in-person sessions, the latter during the 34th CINP World Congress in Montreal. Selected fellows had the opportunity to learn and make round-table discussions with renowned scientists, including Professors Paola Dazzan, Alan Frazer, Gabriella Gobbi, Anthony Grace, Oliver Howes, Kazutaka Ikeda, Kazuyuki Nakagome, Maria Oquendo, Dan Rujescu, Eric Vermetten, and Joseph Zohar, enabling early career researchers to understand each mentor's main scientific trajectory and research methodology. The underpinning aim to support the global networking of early career researchers was achieved through the programme, as evidenced by the ensuing collaborative projects.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0030.024
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.012

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.077 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicUndergraduate Neuroscience Education and ResearchFrench-language works237,207