MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2071270984 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040947

Who benefits from the embargo?

2004· article· en· W2071270984 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
A. M. Todkill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeAccreditationStakeholderPublic healthPublic relationsHealth carePolitical scienceMedicinePublic administrationWorld Wide WebComputer scienceNursingMedical educationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our view, the most important “stakeholder” in Canadian hospitals and Canadian health care research is the Canadian public. And it is in the public's interest that accredited journalists are sent advance notice of material published in CMAJ . This material is embargoed until 17h EST the

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0200.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.016

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→