MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027148768 · doi:10.1097/grf.0b013e3181899bc7

Practice Patterns to Decrease the Risk of a Malpractice Suit

2008· review· en· W2027148768 on OpenAlexaff
David G. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalpracticeLegal riskRisk assessmentRisk managementMedical practiceMedical malpracticeFamily medicineIntensive care medicineLawComputer securityManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved techniques and therapies have been accompanied by increased claims against obstetricians/gynecologists. Practice patterns that can decrease the risk of being sued are presented. Risks are addressed in 2 contexts: (1) medical risk, defined as the risk of an adverse outcome to a patient; (2) legal risk, defined as the risk of being sued.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Obstetrics & GynecologySame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207