MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2228041642 · doi:10.1001/archderm.144.10.1327

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs)

2008· article· en· W2228041642 on OpenAlexaffabout
S Shannon

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Dermatology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReading (process)Resource (disambiguation)Educational resourcesQuality (philosophy)Medical educationMEDLINEPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Journal reading is the number one educational activity for radiologists and is the resource Canadian radiologists use most often when adopting innovations into practice. The goal of the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ) is to provide Canadian radiologists with high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific and educational content. This paper introduces a new publication format for the CARJ, the critically appraised topic or CAT.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.485
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.485
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.016

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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 venueArchives of DermatologySame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207