MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992718059 · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1243/a

Authors' reply on reducing adolescent unintended pregnancy

2002· letter· en· W1992718059 on OpenAlexaff
Alba DiCenso

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnintended pregnancyUnintended consequencesPregnancySex educationPsychologyControl (management)MedicineMedical educationPolitical scienceEconomicsFamily planningEnvironmental healthPopulationResearch methodologyManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EDITOR—Noar points out that control participants in most studies in our systematic review received conventional sex education. 1 2 Therefore, the appropriate conclusion is that more intensive, theory based programmes do not improve outcomes beyond what is achieved by conventional programmes. We agree, and we said so in our paper.2 Noar challenges us to provide an …

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0470.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207