MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical research: up from ‘clinical epidemiology’

2009· article· en· W1590220232 on OpenAlex
Olli S. Miettinen, Lucas M. Bachmann, Johann Steurer

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and modern epidemiology studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusionClinical epidemiologyEpidemiologyStatus quoFoundation (evidence)Meaning (existential)Clinical researchMedicineAlternative medicineEngineering ethicsEpistemologyPsychologyPathologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical research must be understood to be the foundation of scientific medicine of the clinical type. But the essence of scientific clinical medicine remains a matter of profound confusion, even in clinical academia, and so does the essence of clinical research. The confusion now revolves, principally, around 'clinical epidemiology'. We address clinical research in the meaning of quintessentially 'applied' clinical research, which we take to be the foundation of the scientific knowledge base of clinical medicine, of gnosis (dia-, etio-, pro-) in it. More specifically, we address the essence, priorities, and status quo of this research - and argue that the requisite theory of this is not a matter of 'clinical epidemiology' but of theory of clinical research endogenous to clinical (rather than epidemiological) academia.

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.

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)0.523
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.876
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5230.876
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.834
GPT teacher head0.732
Teacher spread0.102 · 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