MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282725073

Rebuttal: Is evidence-based medicine overrated in family medicine?: No.

2013· article· en· W2282725073 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Labrecque, Michel Cauchon

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRebuttalVaguenessAlternative medicineEvidence-based medicinePain medicineMedicinePsychologyFamily medicineEpistemologyPhilosophyComputer sciencePathologyLawPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Dr Upshur and Mr Tracy agree[1][1] with us that the practice of medicine should be based on sound research, they argue that evidence-based medicine (EBM) is overrated because of vagueness and incompleteness; incongruence with the realities of family medicine; ubiquity and overexposure; and

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0540.068
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.015

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 head0.794
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207