MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1986899061 · doi:10.1136/bmj.f1389

Should GPs be fined for rises in avoidable emergency admissions to hospital? Yes

2013· article· en· W1986899061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Q. McShane

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Unintended consequencesProject commissioningPlan (archaeology)Face (sociological concept)Medical emergencyQuality (philosophy)MedicineOperations managementPublishingHistoryPolitical scienceEngineeringLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commissioning organisations in England face losing a quarter of the “quality premium” if they do not keep down their emergency admissions for specific conditions. Martin McShane supports the plan, but Chaand Nagpaul (doi:10.1136/bmj.f1391) worries about possible unintended consequences

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
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: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0290.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.007

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicHealth Services Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→