MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134960410

Proof versus plausibility: rules of engagement for the struggle to evaluate alternative cancer therapies.

2001· article· en· W2134960410 on OpenAlexaff
L. John Hoffer

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicVitamin C and Antioxidants Research
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Government (linguistics)Alternative medicineCancerMedicineComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebPathologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate that has been taking place in CMAJ about alternative cancer therapies is extremely valuable, especially when considered against the backdrop of intense public interest in this subject.[1][1],[2][2],[3][3],[4][4],[5][5],[6][6] Like it or not, government agencies and medical research

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)0.305
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.451
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3050.451
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.117
Scholarly communication0.0280.042
Open science0.0080.020
Research integrity0.0400.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVitamin C and Antioxidants ResearchFrench-language works237,207