Bibliographic record
Abstract
In medicine, there are few absolutes. It is not unusual for physicians with similar training and experience to have different points of view. Even when using rigorous scientific data, experts do not always agree and often reach different conclusions. Prestigious advisory bodies using the same data sometimes arrive at contradictory conclusions. For example, although they used the same data, the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination and the United States Preventive Services Task Force issued different recommendations on use of mammography to systematically screen for breast cancer in women aged 40 to 49 years. Who has not heard the expression “Medicine is both an art and a science” to explain these differences? In light of these contradictions, Canadian Family Physician believes it is important to hear different points of view on topics of interest to family physicians. Consequently, we are launching a new column entitled “Debates.” This column will provide a forum for differing points of view or opposing positions on medical, political, or ethical issues. Topics must be of interest to family physicians, and the origin of the controversy must be clearly outlined. Debates will be structured as follows. Contributors holding opposing viewpoints will present their arguments in a “for” and “against” format on topics the journal deems relevant to family physicians. Texts must be short (maximum of 900 words each) and will be judged on the strength and logic of their authors’ arguments. A summary of the 3 key messages must be provided at the end of the piece. Texts will be published side by side in both official languages. Because authors will not know their opponents’ positions, they will have an opportunity to respond to these opponents’ comments (maximum of 500 words) in a subsequent issue. We hope that this new column will be of interest to you and that many of you will make your views known in letters to the editor. We want to hear from you!
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".