MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906620463 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/rm3s4

“Profile of Sugar Babies: A Scoping Review”

2020· other· en· W6906620463 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSugarPopularitySugar industryAdded sugarSugar production

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sugar dating is growing in popularity in most countries around the world, such as United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Being identified as a form of prostitution, sugar dating presents several risks to sugar babies. However, according to some of our research, there is a lack of consensual information on sugar babies. This scoping review will inventory the profile of sugar babies in the scientific literature. Recommendations based on the scoping review will improve the ability of stakeholders to help people who are sugar babies.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0210.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicPrenatal Substance Exposure EffectsFrench-language works237,207