MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077198417 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.060600

In the aftermath of Chaoulli v. Quebec: Whose opinion prevailed?

2006· review· en· W2077198417 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Amélie Quesnel‐Vallée, Mélanie Bourque, C. Fedick, Antonia Maioni

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic opinionSupreme courtSharpeningIdeologySecond opinionPolitical scienceLawComputer scienceMedicinePoliticsArtificial intelligencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The June 2005 Supreme Court ruling on Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) [1][1] has generated considerable public discussion across Canada, much of it sharpening the ideological divide over the future of our health care system. We present here the highlights of our systematic review of opinion

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.388 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207