MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157789609 · doi:10.1002/meet.1450390131

Filtering for medical news items

2002· article· en· W2157789609 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn Watters, Wanhong Zheng, Evangelos Milios

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Audience measurementFilter (signal processing)Task (project management)Process (computing)Service (business)Information retrievalMedical informationWorld Wide WebAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we describe recent work toprovide a filtering service for readers interested in medically related news articles from online news sources. The first task is to filter out the nonmedical news articles. The remaining articles, the medically related ones, are then assigned MeSH headings for context and then categorized further by intended audience level (medical expert, medically knowledgeable, no particular medical background needed). The effectiveness goals include both accuracy and efficiency. That is, the process must be robust and efficient enough to scan significant data sets dynamically for the user at the same time as provide accurate results. Our primary effectiveness goal is to provide high accuracy at the medical/nonmedical filtering step. The secondary concern is the effectiveness of the subsequent grouping of the medical articles into reader groups with MeSH contexts for each paper. While it is relatively easy for people to judge that an article is nonmedical or medical in content it is relatively difficult to judge that any given article is of interest to certain types of readers, based on the medical language used. Consequently the goal is not necessarily to remove articles of higher readership level but rather to provide more information for the reader.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Society for Information Science and TechnologySame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207