MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260211707 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h6196

Quarter of patients think it's fine to use friend or family member's antibiotics, survey finds

2015· article· en· W2260211707 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Gulland

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfusionQuarter (Canadian coin)CommodityEXPOSEMedicinePublic healthAntibioticsFamily medicineLawPolitical scienceBusinessHistoryNursingPsychologyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doctors have been urged to treat antibiotics as a “precious commodity” in the wake of a World Health Organization survey showing widespread confusion among the general public about their correct use.1 At the launch of a new WHO campaign to encourage good practice among the public, health workers, policy makers, and the agricultural sector, the organisation’s director general, Margaret Chan, urged doctors to play their part. She said, “Doctors need to treat antibiotics as a precious commodity and must try to resist the pressure from individual patients who come in with a cold or flu or viral infection asking for antibiotics.” Keiji Fukuda, Chan’s special representative …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.008

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealthcare Systems and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207