MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084358416 · doi:10.1503/jpn.120240

What does it mean to have enough evidence?

2012· editorial· en· W2084358416 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Glenda MacQueen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2012
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMEDLINEMedicinePsychiatryEpistemologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

> “One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment...” > > Franklin D. Roosevelt Clinicians treating patients and scientists planning studies might agree with the words of Roosevelt: we have to do something. Most clinicians and scientists would

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.352
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.352
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0180.020
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0380.067
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.009

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.372 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychiatry and NeuroscienceSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207