MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986533520 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.090076

Explaining pragmatic trials to pragmatic policy-makers

2009· letter· en· W1986533520 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Malcolm Maclure

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPragmatismFlexibility (engineering)Value (mathematics)PoliticsComputer scienceEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawManagementEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful policy-makers value pragmatism. As politics is “the art of the possible,” pragmatism is the art of the practical and workable. It entails getting more results sooner through flexibility rather than slavish adherence to rigid preconceptions. This requires experience with the trade-offs

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)0.251
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.494
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2510.494
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.070
Scholarly communication0.0190.033
Open science0.0060.015
Research integrity0.0910.070
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207