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 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
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; 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
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