Bibliographic record
Abstract
In evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials are said to be the highest evidence of what works, while anecdotes have low value or are not even considered to be medical evidence. Similar hierarchical views of evidence have infected other disciplines, including evidence-based education and evidence-based government. Here, I explore the artificial divisions of acceptable from unacceptable evidence, numbers from narrative and sciences from humanities. I challenge the deprecation of stories in medicine. Some stories are based on experiments while others are based on more or less plausible theories. Some stories offer vast and impressive statistics gathered from many observations while others present one noteworthy event. Published reports are themselves stories of what experimenters did. Systematic reviewers generate their own observations of collected stories of experiments. Reviewers of systematic reviews in turn report their observations of systematic reviews. All of these stories become evidence of what works in 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 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 | 0.060 | 0.262 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".