Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have probably heard of “EBM”. It stands for “Evidence-Based Medicine ” and is a convenient abbreviation for a phenomenon that has swept through the practice of medicine in the past ten years or so. Nowadays, one cannot open a general medical journal without finding something or other that is described as being evidence-based, or not evidence-based, as the case may be. There is evidence-based practice, evidence-based healthcare, evidence-based prescribing, and so on. “Evidence ” is a buzzword and is the “in ” thing to be evidence-based. But what is this thing called EBM anyway? Is it old wine in a new skin? Or just common sense? A BRIEF HISTORY The beginning of EBM can be traced to the early 1990s, when a group of doctors at the McMaster University in Canada, the evidence-based medicine working group, published an article in the Journal
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 | 0.028 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.011 |
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".