MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992073638 · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7342.860

Health: perception versus observation

2002· editorial· en· W1992073638 on OpenAlexaff
Amartya Sen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2002
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeight lossObesityDiseaseHealth professionalsPerceptionMedicineRisk factorGerontologyPsychologyHealth careInternal medicineNeurosciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity is an established risk factor for chronic disease and premature death, but losing weight and keeping it off is difficult. Therefore, although obese individuals may know that they are at higher risk of disease and early death, they still may not be able to lose weight and maintain weight loss. Perhaps health professionals should focus less on weight and more on how to enhance and maintain health for people of all sizes and shapes.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0210.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations707
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207