MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096345448 · doi:10.1136/jme.2006.016204

Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE’s decisions

2006· review· en· W2096345448 on OpenAlexaff
Karl Claxton, Anthony J. Culyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Ethics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Work & Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWickednessRebuttalNiceExcellenceMoralitySociologyMedical ethicsConcretenessLawEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rebuttal is provided to each of the arguments adduced by John Harris, an Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, in two editorials in the journal in support of the view that National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's procedures and methods for making recommendations about healthcare procedures for use in the National Health Service in England and Wales are the product of "wickedness or folly or more likely both", "ethically illiterate as well as socially divisive", responsible for the "perversion of science as well as of morality" and are "contrary to basic morality and contrary to human rights".

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.023
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0120.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.921
GPT teacher head0.727
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EthicsSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207