MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131149119 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h4534

Setting a research agenda for medical overuse

2015· article· en· W2131149119 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Morgan, Shannon Brownlee, Aaron L. Leppin, Nancy R. Kressin, Sanket S. Dhruva, Les Levin, Bruce E. Landon, Mark Zezza, Harald Schmidt, Vikas Saini, Adam G. Elshaug

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although overuse in medicine is gaining increased attention, many questions remain unanswered. <b>Dan Morgan and colleagues </b>propose an agenda for coordinated research to improve our understanding of the problem

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)0.256
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.448
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2560.448
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0150.027
Scholarly communication0.0340.053
Open science0.0110.027
Research integrity0.0640.052
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.005

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 head0.933
GPT teacher head0.741
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
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

Citations213
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207