MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172793034 · doi:10.1177/0840470415599113

Be careful what you ask for

2015· review· en· W2172793034 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janice Popp, Ann Casebeer

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsk priceGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsPublic sectorBusinessPublic policyInternet privacyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agents of government have increasingly used networks as policy tools to connect organizations within and/or across public sector jurisdictions. This has been particularly striking in health systems across Canada. Cynics argue they are pseudo-fixes; we take a more optimistic view. We explore the unique features of mandated networks, sharing their limitations and possibilities and providing targeted messages for policy-makers considering using them, ultimately suggesting that they should "be careful what they ask for."

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.009

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207