MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095434043

EWSLETTER ONTARIO AssociATION oF PHYsics TEACHERS (an affiliate ofthe American Association ofPhysics Teachers) Volume XVI, Number 2 Winter 1994 From the President

2013· article· en· W7095434043 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsideAssociation (psychology)Presentation (obstetrics)OddsConstructivePosition (finance)Executive summaryCarr
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Your OAPT membership allows you to provide the executive with valuable input. Any suggestions, questions on current OAPT practices, constructive criticism, etc., are always welcome. As we all tell our students: "If you have a thought, odds are a couple of others have the same thought and everyone will benefit from hearing it." There is also another avenue for supplying input to the OAPT and that is to take a position on the executive. Geographical separation is not a factor when communication is largely done via phone, fax and mail. The time commitment is not a great one. No one has extra time they need to fill up, but setting aside a few hours a month is a worthy sacrifice if you are serious about sharing physics education ideas. You can also do a presentation (short or long) at the annual conference, you can write to Paul at the newsletter or submit articles on demonstrations to Ernie at the Demonstration Comer. We want to hear from you. As you may have heard me say during the OAPT Conference at Trent University: "This is your association, help us give you what you want." I look forward to seeing you all in Ottawa next

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4670.196

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→