MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039735207 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.2308

Status of men’s health in Canada

2014· review· en· W2039735207 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
S. Larry Goldenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Men are more likely to die of cancer, heart disease, or diabetes at younger ages than women - a reality that is compounded by the reluctance of men to use healthcare services. In addition to reduced life expectancy, men can also expect to live fewer healthy years than their female counterparts. As gynecologists and obstetricians have led the women's health movement in addressing gender-specific gaps in care, urologists are well-poised to take on a leadership role to advocate for, and address, men's health initiatives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207