MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048709304 · doi:10.1007/s00464-014-4044-2

Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making

2014· article· en· W2048709304 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Ho, Juan Marcos González, Herbert Lerner, Carolyn Y. Neuland, Joyce M. Whang, Michelle McMurry-Heath, Brett Hauber, Telba Irony

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Endoscopy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePreferenceRespondentWeight lossCost–benefit analysisRisk assessmentBody mass indexActuarial scienceStatisticsObesityBusinessInternal medicineComputer science

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)0.144
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.425
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1440.425
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 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

Citations219
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSurgical EndoscopySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207