MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129289128 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1062168

Lost in Interpretation: Autonomy and What Patients Tell Versus What Is Inferred

2015· letter· en· W2129289128 on OpenAlexaff
Veljko Dubljević

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)AutonomyPsychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kelley and colleagues (2015) provide a useful set of data on patient perspectives on shared decision making in learning health system-based trials. However, their interpretation seems to neglect ce...

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.047
Scholarly communication0.0190.017
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.1220.128
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.341 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of BioethicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207