MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2016977792 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3244

Research allocations: Should societal concerns drive the research agenda?

2010· article· en· W2016977792 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Roger Collier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCuriosityAntithesisPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsPsychologySocial psychologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strategic research is often positioned as the antithesis of basic research, but some scientists claim the majority of targeted research is still largely driven by the curiosity of researchers. What people don’t agree on is whether this is good or bad. According to Marco Di Buono, director of

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)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.296
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.296
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0270.030
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0180.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.334
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
DomainIncentives
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicHealth and Medical Research Impacts→French-language works237,207→