MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dangerous views require scientific evidence

2015· letter· en· W2259030710 on OpenAlexaff
I B Pless

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmScientific evidencePluralism (philosophy)Suicide preventionPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsPromotion (chess)Occupational safety and healthEngineering ethicsPsychologyMedicineCriminologyMedical emergencyPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial psychologyLawEpistemologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor, The paper “Can child injury prevention include healthy risk promotion?”1 asserts that risky play is needed to ensure ‘healthy child development’ and to avoid causing ‘serious harm’. The authors need to support these claims with scientific evidence from objective studies. Such evidence is far superior to knowledge provided by ‘pluralism’ or ‘multiple perspectives’. The debate about ‘practitioners’ wisdom being …

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.195
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.195
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.019
Open science0.0080.005
Research integrity0.0920.134
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.009

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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207