MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023432723 · doi:10.12927/hcq..17908

Canada Urgently Needs a National Network of Libraries to Access Evidence

2006· article· en· W2023432723 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessie McGowan, Sharon E. Straus, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational libraryHealth careService (business)Best practiceHealth professionalsMedicineQuality (philosophy)BusinessPolitical scienceFamily medicineNursingLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian health professionals and their patients are deprived of important evidence to guide health and healthcare decisions, ensure quality and avoid unnecessary deaths because, unlike other developed countries, Canada does not have a national medical library as can be found in the United States' National Library of Medicine and the United Kingdom's National Health Service.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.181
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.181
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0200.013
Science and technology studies0.0220.007
Scholarly communication0.0260.019
Open science0.0120.023
Research integrity0.0170.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.013

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207