MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110029978 · doi:10.1016/s1499-2671(06)04003-2

From Talk to Text: Balancing Ethical and Aesthetic Considerations in Editing

2006· article· en· W2110029978 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hannah Tait Neufeld, Gail Marchessault, Heather Dean

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Diabetes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDiabetes CanadaWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchParaphrasePerspective (graphical)PopularityPhenomenonUtterancePsychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceEpistemologySocial psychologySociologyArtificial intelligence

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.299
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.299
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.025
Scholarly communication0.0230.008
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0080.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of DiabetesSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207