MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088360130 · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.186

Rethinking biobanking and translational medicine in the Netherlands: how the research process stands to matter for patient care

2014· article· en· W2088360130 on OpenAlexaff
Conor M.W. Douglas, Philip Scheltens

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Human Genetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
FundersNIH Clinical CenterVrije Universiteit Amsterdam
KeywordsBiobankTranslational researchTranslational medicineHealth careHealth care deliveryProcess (computing)Medical researchMedicinePatient careMedical educationProcess managementBusinessComputer scienceBioinformaticsNursingPathologyPolitical scienceBiology

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)0.355
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.405
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3550.405
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0130.036
Scholarly communication0.0570.040
Open science0.0070.022
Research integrity0.0150.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Human GeneticsSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207