MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075293245 · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7396.948/a

Canada insists that it is a safe place to visit

2003· article· en· W2075293245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Spurgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth departmentMedical emergencyEmergency departmentFamily medicinePublic healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian federal health department was maintaining this week that despite WHO's warnings Canada was safe to visit. WHO last week advised travellers not to visit Toronto but was reviewing its advice on the matter on Tuesday 29 April, as the BMJ went to press. By 28 April the health department had reported 344 probable or suspected cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and 21 deaths. On its website …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1040.020

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.339
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

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
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207