Neural representations of stimulus category membership across modalities: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This registration is the protocol of a systematic review under the working title “Neural representations of stimulus category membership across modalities: A systematic review.” This report is not an update of any previous systematic review. This report is registered at https://osf.io/4kda2/. Author Contacts: Anthony Cruz (Corresponding Author): acruz27@uwo.ca John Paul Minda, PhD: jpminda@uwo.ca Western Interdisciplinary Research Building, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON N6A 3K7, Room 5158 Both authors contributed to the search strategy and analytic plan of this review. Any deviations from this protocol, as well as their motivations, will be documented and published as supplementary material alongside the review. Important deviations will be discussed in the review article itself. This review is supported by the University of Western Ontario, which provides subscriptions to academic databases and to Covidence. This institution has played no role in developing this protocol. This registration was developed using the PRISMA-P checklist.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.109 | 0.314 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".