MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996197035 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3111

European Working Time Directive faces challenges

2009· article· en· W1996197035 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T. Villaneuva

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectiveWorking timeWork (physics)MedicinePatient safetyPatient careMedical emergencyNursingComputer scienceHealth careLawPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critics, including the Royal College of Surgeons of England, have charged that a 48-hour work week for European doctors compromises training and results in a lack of continuity in patient care, and even patient death. Proponents counter that patient safety is substantially improved as doctors are

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0320.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.011

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHealth Services Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207