MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072987568 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.114-0075

Canadian Clinical Trials Coordinating Centre

2014· letter· en· W2072987568 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bill Tholl

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeadlineClinical trialComputer scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineData sciencePathologyBusinessAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thank you for covering the Canadian Clinical Trials Coordinating Centre (CCTCC) in your May 26, 2014, news article.[1][1] We appreciate your interest in the CCTCC, however, the article is missing important information which we would like to share. First, contrary to the headline, the CCTCC is a

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
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 score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0130.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1390.058

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207