MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209341876 · doi:10.1186/2197-425x-3-s1-a863

DETERMINANTS OF DOWNLOADS AND CITATIONS FOR ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE

2015· article· en· W2209341876 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe Citerio, M. Lavilloniere, Anders Perner, Martin Smith, Stéphane Ruckly, Matteo Bassetti, Jan Bakker, Dominique Benoît, JR Curtis, Gordon S. Doig, Margaret S. Herridge, Samir Jaber, Laurent Papazian, Mark Peters, Pierre Singer, Márcio Soares, Antoni Torres, Antoine Viellard-Baron, Élie Azoulay

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine Experimental · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAcademic Writing and Publishing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeer reviewMEDLINEMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical publications undergo a comprehensive process of editor's handling, peer reviewing and editing that intends to select manuscripts that are both likely to be read and cited.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.030
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.015

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine ExperimentalSame topicAcademic Writing and PublishingFrench-language works237,207