Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most work on NiBabel so far has been by Matthew Brett (MB), Chris Markiewicz (CM), Michael Hanke (MH), Marc-Alexandre Côté (MC), Ben Cipollini (BC), Paul McCarthy (PM), Chris Cheng (CC), Yaroslav Halchenko (YOH), Satra Ghosh (SG), Eric Larson (EL), Demian Wassermann, and Stephan Gerhard. References like "pr/298" refer to github pull request numbers. 2.5.2 (Wednesday 8 April 2020) Bug-fix release in the 2.5.x series. This is an extended-support series, providing bug fixes for Python 2.7 and 3.4. This and all future releases in the 2.5.x series will be incompatible with Python 3.9. The last compatible series of numpy and scipy are 1.16.x and 1.2.x, respectively. If you are able to upgrade to Python 3, it is recommended to upgrade to NiBabel 3. Bug fixes Change strings with invalid escapes to raw strings (pr/827) (EL, reviewed by CM) Re-import externals/netcdf.py from scipy to resolve numpy deprecation (pr/821) (CM) Maintenance Set maximum numpy to 1.16.x, maximum scipy to 1.2.x (pr/901) (CM)
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.278 | 0.445 |
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".