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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.015

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 head0.106
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 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
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