MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274629145

Dangerous ideas: Top 4 proposals presented at Family Medicine Forum.

2016· article· en· W2274629145 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Greiver, Karim Keshavjee, Neil D. Dattani, Don Melady, Allan Gm

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsHydro One (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Primary careAlternative medicineSection (typography)MedicineFamily medicineLibrary scienceMedical educationComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dangerous Ideas Soapbox is a session presented annually at Family Medicine Forum by the College of Family Physicians of Canada’s Section of Researchers. Originating with the Society for Academic Primary Care in the United Kingdom, this forum invites innovative ideas as a demonstration of the

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.003
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0170.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1330.034

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 head0.436
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207