MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2023264839 · doi:10.1016/j.hcmf.2013.09.006

The Estrogen Receptor/Progesterone Receptor Testing Errors in Newfoundland and Labrador: A Journey of Hope, Health, and Healing

2013· article· en· W2023264839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Chubbs

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgesterone receptorCommissionEstrogenEstrogen receptorHealthcare systemReceptorPolitical scienceMedicineHealth careInternal medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Newfoundland and Labrador, the estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor testing errors left an unparalleled effect. Patients, families, members of healthcare teams, and many others were left shaken and wondering how the province could move forward. This article reflects on some of the processes Eastern Health had to go through to learn and grow from the experience, as well as discusses how the organization met the requirements set forth in the Commission of Inquiry report.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.018
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0040.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management Forum→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→