MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027245165 · doi:10.1136/bmj.g3190

Is the billion unit pledge just window dressing?

2014· article· en· W2027245165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Gornall

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPledgeQuarter (Canadian coin)Unit (ring theory)Government (linguistics)Window (computing)Stack (abstract data type)Alcohol consumptionBusinessFinancePolitical scienceAlcoholComputer scienceHistoryLawPsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Last month the government announced that the alcohol industry was a quarter of the way to meeting its pledge to reduce alcohol consumption by a billion units, but do the figures stack up and what do they tell us about industry intentions? Jonathan Gornall investigates

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0240.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0680.029

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth Services Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207