MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163177686 · doi:10.1080/17457300701819563

Transferring injury data to decision makers in British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2163177686 on OpenAlexaffabout
Craig Mitton, Ying C. MacNab, Neale Smith, L. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryAgency (philosophy)Columbia universityFunding AgencySocial researchResearch programFoundation (evidence)Library scienceOccupational safety and healthPolitical sciencePublic administrationSociologyPublic relationsLawMedia studiesSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgements This case study is part of an ongoing research programme entitled ‘Burden of Injury in BC and Its Local Communities: Information and Evidence for Community-based Prevention Strategy, Health Policy and Service Provision’. Ethics approval was granted by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board. Craig Mitton receives funding from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and the Canada Research Chairs program. Ying MacNab receives funding from the the British Columbia Child and Family Research Institute Investigator Award program, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Canadian Institute for Health Research, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health. Les Foster receives financial support from the British Columbia Ministry of Health. The authors also thank the British Columbia Ministry of Health, the British Columbia Vital Statistics Agency and the University of British Columbia's Centre for Health Services and Policy Research for provision of the injury data.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Injury Control and Safety PromotionSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207