MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2288583938 · doi:10.1177/0840470415626524

Putting children first

2016· review· en· W2288583938 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stuart MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Action (physics)Political scienceMedicineFamily medicinePublic relationsPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than 50 years, the importance of studying new medicines in childhood has been widely recognized. Nonetheless, Health Canada has eschewed policies requiring such evaluation, despite effective reforms elsewhere. In 2012, the Council of Canadian Academies convened an expert panel to assess Canada's research base for labelling of pediatric therapies. The September 2014 report has not yet resulted in action, but it deserves consideration by the new government with timely recognition of the high priority that evidence-based treatment of children deserves.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207