MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167643701 · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4163

How should we define health?

2011· article· en· W2167643701 on OpenAlexaff
Machteld Huber, J. André Knottnerus, L. Green, Henriëtte van der Horst, Alejandro R. Jadad, Daan Kromhout, Barbara J. Leonard, Kate Lorig, Isabel Loureiro, J. W. M. v. d. Meer, P.-E. Schnabel, Renee Smith, Chris van Weel, Henk Smid

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFace (sociological concept)Chronic diseaseData scienceMedicineFamily medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The WHO definition of health as complete wellbeing is no longer fit for purpose given the rise of chronic disease. <b>Machteld Huber and colleagues </b>propose changing the emphasis towards the ability to adapt and self manage in the face of social, physical, and emotional challenges

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.068
Scholarly communication0.0160.041
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0150.052
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2,650
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207