MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084970679 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06035-4

Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability

2001· article· en· W2084970679 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Davidoff, Catherine D. DeAngelis, Jeffrey M. Drazen, John Hoey, L Højgaard, Richard Horton, Sheldon Kotzin, M. Gary Nicholls, Magne Nylenna, Andrew St John, PM Overbeke, Harold C. Sox, Martin B Van Der Weyden, Michael S. Wilkes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsCanadian Medical Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityAlternative medicinePublic relationsClinical trialObjectivity (philosophy)Multinational corporationHealth careMedicineMedical prescriptionPolitical scienceFamily medicineLawNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.476
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.476
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0240.012
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0240.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.007

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 head0.628
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.044 · 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
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations141
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207