MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101502844

Advertising best practices

2010· article· en· W2101502844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGeneral practiceWorld Wide WebInternet privacyData scienceAdvertisingMedicineBusinessFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the article “Droit d’auteur et droit de savoir”[1][1] by our Associate Editor somewhat uncomfortably demonstrates, many people might not understand copyright in general or how to share information in Canadian Family Physician (CFP) in particular. First of all, it is our policy and the

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1990.107

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 head0.451
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.093 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207