MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7004565014

How It Went Down

2022· article· en· W7004565014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiological and pharmacological studies of plants
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsnobodyShot (pellet)Quarter (Canadian coin)MistakeContext (archaeology)Narrative
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tariq Johnson is shot down in his own neighborhood after picking up groceries. But even though his death had multiple witnesses, they each seem to have interpreted the situation differently. While some see it as a senseless killing, others think Tariq had it coming to him. While some saw a gun in his hand, other just saw a Snickers bar. As news of the incident spreads through the neighborhood and then through the country, it seems that nobody is left untouched by the newest story of white-on-black violence. In the weeks after his death, it doesn't seem to matter who knew him well and who didn’t. Everyone is wondering whether Tariq was at fault. Everyone is wondering how much of this killing has to do with race. But, most of all, everyone is wondering how something like this could happen again and what they can do to change it.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University)Same topicBiological and pharmacological studies of plantsFrench-language works237,207