MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131076754 · doi:10.1007/bf03404547

Principles for the Justification of Public Health Intervention

2002· article· en· W2131076754 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Ross Upshur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Public Health · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDeliberationReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Public healthTransparency (behavior)HarmEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceSociologyManagement scienceSocial scienceMedicineLawEconomicsEngineering

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)0.137
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.165
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1370.165
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.081
Scholarly communication0.0170.009
Open science0.0090.008
Research integrity0.0510.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.589
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.059 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations363
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Public HealthSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207