MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the continuum: medical information to effective clinical practice*. Paper II. Towards aetiology‐centred clinical practice

2005· article· en· W2079971088 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Genuis, Shelagh K. Genuis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseasePsychological interventionAlternative medicineClinical trialEtiologyHealth careMainstreamHealth promotionPromotion (chess)NursingFamily medicinePsychiatryPublic healthPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary clinical practice increasingly functions within a disease management paradigm aimed at finding and implementing therapeutic interventions that demonstrate efficacy in clinical trials. Disease prevention, elucidation of illness aetiology and proactive health promotion have taken a back seat. Current clinical care often includes a 'fast-food' type of medical encounter, which frequently neglects disease causality. The medical community is presently challenged by unique administrative and professional adversities as well as undue commercial influence; these factors contribute to a lethargic response to escalating rates of chronic illness and to mainstream medicine's relative inattention to emerging research about disease aetiology. Individual medical practitioners and the medical establishment must strategically seek to advance patient health and maintain professional relevancy by a renewed emphasis on the following principles: patient-based clinical care, aetiology-centred medicine, and proactive health promotion.

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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.124
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.059
Scholarly communication0.0350.047
Open science0.0040.019
Research integrity0.0140.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.647
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207