MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090543148 · doi:10.1017/s0266462300103022

INTRODUCTION: PRACTICE GUIDELINES

2000· article· en· W2090543148 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Jaime

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCanadian Association of Radiation Oncology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical PracticeHealth careMedical practiceQuality (philosophy)Quarter (Canadian coin)MedicineMedical careControl (management)NursingMedical educationPolitical scienceEconomicsLawManagementHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The profusion of clinical practice guidelines has been remarked on by many (3;6;8) and ascribed to a need to address the wide geographic differences in practice documented in the last quarter century (9;10), as well as to the increasing concern with the cost of health care. The idea is that guidelines, by outlining efficient care strategies, will enhance the quality of care and reduce unnecessary or unproductive expenditures. Others hold that guidelines are simply a means of transferring the results of research from the literature to clinicians (2;5). A darker view of guidelines sees them as instruments of control of medical practice by uncaring administrators concerned solely with cost reduction (4;7).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.469 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207