MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929270284 · doi:10.4224/40000403

Supplément au CNPI 2010: Énoncés d'intention

2011· standard· fr· W6929270284 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2011
Typestandard
Languagefr
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivision (mathematics)Relation (database)Unit (ring theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les codes modèles nationaux de construction de 2010 ont une structure « axée sur les objectifs » constituée de trois divisions (A, B et C). Les codes contiennent des objectifs et des énoncés fonctionnels précis (voir la division A), qui sont des énoncés décrivant les fonctions que les composants d'un bâtiment ou d'une installation doivent accomplir ainsi que les objectifs que doivent atteindre ces fonctions. La plupart des dispositions de la division B - appelées solutions acceptables - sont liées à au moins l'un de ces objectifs et énoncés fonctionnels.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207