MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152105789 · doi:10.1093/ije/dym152

Commentary: The rise and rise of corporate epidemiology and the narrowing of epidemiology's vision

2007· letter· en· W2152105789 on OpenAlex
Neil Pearce

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Epidemiology · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Research Council of New Zealand
KeywordsEpidemiologyHindsight biasQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicinePolitical scienceHistoryPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethical regulations have become stricter throughout the world—fortunately so!—but this has not significantly hindered large-scale studies. Also fortunately, legal action does not seem to constitute a major threat to research outside the USA. In particular, epidemiological studies have markedly increased in Latin America and Asia, firstly with important contributions of researchers from North America and Europe, but in the last couple of decades with a steadily growing participation of local scientists. For example, our last national epidemiological conference in Brazil attracted over 4000 participants. Many studies on infectious and nutritional epidemiology are under way in Africa, mainly on AIDS and malaria; although these investigations are still mostly led by expatriates, African scientists are building up their own research centres and networks. I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation in the USA to gauge whether Rothman’s article had a major impact. It received a modest 36 citations in the Web of Science since its publication, and the only letter that appeared in the following issues of the New England Journal of Medicine was from Alvan Feinstein, who challenged the contribution of William Farr to epidemiology because of his backing of the miasma theory. Hardly a topic of current interest! Futurology is a high-risk occupation. Again with the benefit of hindsight, looking at Rothman’s paper after a quarter century shows that ethical guidelines helped improve epidemiology, and that our discipline evolved much beyond the study of proximate exposures and of hospital-based studies. Long live epidemiology!

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.198
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1980.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.627
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.039 · 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