MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157909220 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003821

‘Choosing Wisely’: a growing international campaign

2014· review· en· W2157909220 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Medical AssociationUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineHarmPublic relationsPlan (archaeology)Developing countryValue (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Economic growthPolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much attention has been paid to the inappropriate underuse of tests and treatments but until recently little attention has focused on the overuse that does not add value for patients and may even cause harm. Choosing Wisely is a campaign to engage physicians and patients in conversations about unnecessary tests, treatments and procedures. The campaign began in the United States in 2012, in Canada in 2014 and now many countries around the world are adapting the campaign and implementing it. This article describes the present status of Choosing Wisely programs in 12 countries. It articulates key elements, a set of five principles, and describes the challenges countries face in the early phases of Choosing Wisely. These countries plan to continue collaboration including developing metrics to measure overuse.

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.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.810
GPT teacher head0.680
Teacher spread0.130 · 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