MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118427331 · doi:10.2337/diacare.24.7.1306-a

Response to Egede

2001· article· en· W2118427331 on OpenAlexaff
Steven A. Grover, Louis Coupal, Hanna Zowall

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusMEDLINEEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Egede (1) for his letter in this issue of Diabetes Care and for taking the time to read our study (2) and provide us with his thoughtful comments. He raises several important points. The first point concerns the choice of years of life saved rather than quality-adjusted life years in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Dr. Egede’s point that both diabetes and cardiovascular disease may have a significant impact on quality of life is well taken. We agree with him that it would be desirable to include quality-of-life issues in …

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0360.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.010

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207