MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050321840 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020207

Five Futures for Academic Medicine

2005· article· en· W2050321840 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shally Awasthi, Jil Beardmore, Jocalyn Clark, Philip Hadridge, Hardi Madani, Ana Marušić, Gretchen P. Purcell, Margaret Rhoads, Karen Sliwa‐Hahnle, Judith Smith, Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer, Peter Tugwell, Tim Underwood

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSichuan UniversityMedical Research CouncilUniversity of East AngliaUniversity of California, DavisBen-Gurion University of the NegevUniversity of New South WalesUniversity of SouthamptonUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of IoanninaWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityUniversity of TorontoWorld Health Organization
KeywordsAcademic medicineGlobal healthGlobalizationPovertyFutures contractMedicineHealth carePolitical sciencePublic relationsMedical educationLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine (ICRAM) considered current global instabilities and future drivers of change, and then created five scenarios of how academic medicine might look in 2025.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations56
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207