MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1760059175 · doi:10.51644/9780889205383

Secondary Sources in the History of Canadian Medicine

2010· letter· en· W1760059175 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles G. Roland, Jacques Bernier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volume Two of this retrospective bibliography is both a continuation and an expansion of Volume One (1984). It contains references to Canadian medical-historical literature published between 1984 and 1998, and also includes much additional material published prior to 1984. Finally, it substantially enlarges the content of French-language material. Every effort has been made to be as inclusive as possible of articles, theses, book chapters and books, both in English and in French, relating to the history of medicine. No single electronic source can replace this bibliography. The contents are divided into three sections. The first is a listing of material expressly biographical. Section two lists material under a wide variety of subject headings related to medicine, and the third is a complete listing of the authors who have contributed these articles. Simply organized and easy to use, this bibliography will be of value to historians, archivists, librarians, and anyone interested in the history of medicine.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0120.027
Science and technology studies0.0120.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1030.017

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207