MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2194850407 · doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2015.07.005

The Quest for Quality: Principles to Guide Medical Radiation Technology Practice

2015· review· en· W2194850407 on OpenAlexaff
Caitlin Gillan, Carol‐Anne Davis, Kathryn Moran, John French, Brian Liszewski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)StandardizationGeneral partnershipQuality assuranceQuality managementWork (physics)Quality policyKnowledge managementComputer scienceProcess managementPatient safetyRisk analysis (engineering)Health careManagement scienceBusinessEngineeringPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.024
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.410 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciencesSame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207