MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014411320 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1070163

Controls in studies of magnetism

2007· article· en· W2014411320 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Max H Pittler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboMagnetMagnetismReduction (mathematics)MedicineComputer scienceAlternative medicineCondensed matter physicsPhysicsPathologyMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[One of the authors responds:] We welcome Peter McCarthy's comments. As we reported in our article, the primary analysis in our study included only trials that compared magnets and a nonmagnetic placebo.[1][1] There was no significant difference in pain reduction between the magnet and placebo

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicParanormal Experiences and BeliefsFrench-language works237,207