MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099723671

An Overview of Differential Response Models

2015· article· en· W7099723671 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectHarmDifferential (mechanical device)Poison controlSexual abuse
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

responding to growing numbers of referrals involving an increasingly broad array of problems. In Ontario alone, the number of reports of abuse and neglect increased 44 % between 1993 and 1998 and the number of substantiated investigations doubled (Trocmé et al., 2002). The increase has been driven primarily by cases involving neglect or exposure to domestic violence, with cases involving severe physical harm or sexual abuse representing an ever-smaller proportion of cases. While urgent protective response continues to be a priority in situations involving severe abuse, there is growing interest in developing alternative

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0090.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.005

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.168 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→