MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2052221197 · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4038

Alberta University medical dean resigns after students detect plagiarism in his speech

2011· article· en· W2052221197 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
O. Dyer

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJargonTerm (time)PsychologyMedical educationMedia studiesMedicineSociologyLinguisticsPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dean of the University of Alberta’s medical school, Philip Baker, has resigned as dean—but will remain a professor—after students complained that he plagiarised a speech given to graduates last week, taking it from an address given to Stanford graduates by the US surgeon and journalist Atul Gawande. Dr Gawande’s speech drew wide attention last year, and several students in Dr Baker’s audience were reminded of it by the dean’s use of the term “velluvial matrix.” This imaginary term had been used by Dr Gawande to illustrate the growth of medical jargon, and it was also the title under …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.010

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Research integrity

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicInnovations in Medical Education→CategoryResearch integrity→French-language works237,207→