MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008148302 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.060231

Evidence and advocacy: Are all things considered?

2006· letter· en· W2008148302 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jeffrey Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleGovernment of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceHealth careAssociation (psychology)MEDLINEData scienceMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent exchange on the discord between influential recommendations is highly relevant to our health care systems.[1][1]–[3][2] The Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA)'s national clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), past[4][3] and present,[5][4] are among the most rigorous and evidence-based

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.322
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.322
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.027
Scholarly communication0.0200.039
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.1000.149
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.009

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207