MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053185172 · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1537-0

Is Looking Older than One’s Actual Age a Sign of Poor Health?

2010· article· en· W2053185172 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen W. Hwang, Mina Atia, Rosane Nisenbaum, Dwayne E. Paré, Steve Joordens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Internal Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineHealth careGeriatricsCross-sectional studyGerontologyPediatricsPsychiatry

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

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Clinical study on perceived age and health; abstract absent but the title is unambiguous.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This is a health study of perceived age and health status, not research practice.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Title asks whether looking older signals poor health; clinical/epidemiologic domain question.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General Internal MedicineSame topicBody Image and Dysmorphia StudiesFrench-language works237,207