MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219502698

Men's health research: under researched and under appreciated?

2008· article· en· W2219502698 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark O. Baerlocher, Sarita Verma

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthPsychologyGerontologyMedicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well-known that men tend to live longer than women. Despite this, women's health research, as a category of research, is much better recognized than men's health research. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research--Institute of Gender and Health has recognized this issue, and is currently attempting to determine research gaps in men's health research.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0140.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.667
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207