MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146351489 · doi:10.1093/ije/dyu206

Prince Kropotkin: public health's patron saint

2014· editorial· en· W2146351489 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Koch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Epidemiology · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatron saintPublic healthLibrary scienceMedicineSAINTPolitical scienceHistoryComputer scienceArt historyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Naturalists have long provided the general backcloth against which issues of health care and public health are constructed. In seeking the general case through studies of human and non-human species, naturalists provide a context in which specific arguments about human states of disease and health (and responsibility for them) are set. Think, for example, of Stephen J Gould and his Mismeasure of Man;1 and for a different perspective consider EO Wilson,2 called by some admirers ‘Darwin’s natural heir’.3 Indeed, consider not the heirs but Charles Darwin himself. Famously, his evolutionary theory insisted upon competition for eternally scarce resources between individuals of the same species (as well as between species) as the critical engine of evolutionary advancement. His enduring legacy helped to shape scientific and social thinking into the 21st century. At one scale it gave us Richard Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene,4 genetics as a kind of competitive zero-sum game. At another, the assumption of selfish competition enforces a principle underlying laissez faire economic theories in which competition between individuals is assumed to be inevitable, natural and efficient.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0160.007
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0470.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.354 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of EpidemiologySame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207