MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099401931 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.080454

Wrongful birth litigation and prenatal screening

2008· article· en· W2099401931 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mark Pioro, Roxanne Mykitiuk, Jeff Nisker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalpracticeClinical PracticeMedicinePrenatal careFamily medicineMedical emergencyLawPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian clinicians must be aware of new standards of care resulting from national clinical practice guidelines, both to ensure best practice[1][1],[2][2] and to avoid malpractice litigation.[3][3],[4][4] Clinical practice guidelines can reduce successful malpractice actions through physician

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207