MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991134273 · doi:10.1080/09581590701770446

Distinguishing surveillance from research

2007· article· en· W1991134273 on OpenAlex
Greg Sherman, José Campione-Piccardo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Public Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthEpistemologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyManagement scienceEngineering ethicsMedicineEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The public health practitioner's, researcher's and administrator's search for a clear, concise distinction between what is meant by ‘surveillance’ and what is meant by ‘research’ never seems to be satisfactorily resolved, resulting in the notion of a ‘grey area’ where the respective activities supposedly cannot be differentiated. We investigate, from basic principles, why two seemingly straightforward concepts are so often confused and offer a conceptual framework which distinguishes health surveillance from other kinds of health-related investigation. Finally, we discuss the policy and practice implications of failing to maintain the research/surveillance distinction.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.255 · 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