MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079799846 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2011.22435

Playing to Our Strengths in Evidence and Policy

2011· letter· en· W2079799846 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adalsteinn Brown, G. Baker, Jérémy Veillard

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Value (mathematics)Intellectual capitalPolicy makingPositive economicsCapital (architecture)Public relationsEvidence-based policyPublic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw and economicsLawHistoryComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lindstrom, MacLeod and Levy provide an interesting and challenging perspective on collaborative policy making. In this commentary, we argue that effective policy making will require playing to our strengths as policy makers and researchers, rather than the creation of new roles and vehicles. We also argue that we need greater value placed on evidence and intellectual capital across all institutions in our health system.

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.291
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.291
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.046
Scholarly communication0.0280.046
Open science0.0070.014
Research integrity0.1040.135
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy→Same topicHealth and Medical Research Impacts→French-language works237,207→