MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988366660 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3064

Correcting the CIHR course

2009· article· en· W1988366660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wayne Kondro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScience, Research, and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsideBlueprintCourse (navigation)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Set-asidePolitical scienceData sciencePublic relationsOperations researchEngineeringProgramming languageArtBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Institutional strategic plans are often very much like election campaign platforms — glossy blueprints chock full of marvels that promise everything to everyone and then are systematically set aside to collect bookshelf dust. Occasionally, though, they actually signal a change in direction,

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.186
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.186
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0120.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.015

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
DomainIncentives
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicScience, Research, and MedicineFrench-language works237,207