MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The problem of evidence-based medicine: directions for social science

2004· article· en· W2035008767 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric Mykhalovskiy, Lorna Weir

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityDalhousie University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsEvidence-based medicineEpistemologyRationalization (economics)SociologySociology of scientific knowledgeScience studiesEmpirical evidencePoliticsPostmodernismSocial scienceAction (physics)Engineering ethicsMEDLINEPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.315
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.472
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3150.472
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.005
Bibliometrics0.0160.010
Science and technology studies0.0100.121
Scholarly communication0.0290.060
Open science0.0090.018
Research integrity0.0370.049
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.733
GPT teacher head0.634
Teacher spread0.099 · 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
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

Citations360
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & MedicineSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207