MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2297765185 · doi:10.1136/bmj.i1490

<i>The BMJ</i>should not narrowly confine publication to positivist quantitative studies

2016· letter· en· W2297765185 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fiona Webster

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositivismData scienceComputer scienceInformation retrievalOperations researchEpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I am disappointed in the official response by the editors of The BMJ.1 2 I am fortunate enough to be a member of a community of research scientists who are largely trained in social science approaches, such as critical qualitative research, at the University of Toronto in Canada (Centre for Critical Qualitative Research and the Wilson Centre for Education Research). Qualitative research as a broad category refers to or draws on many academic disciplines, including sociology, philosophy, and anthropology, to name just a few, not to mention centuries of academic thought.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.309
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.309
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.020
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0800.131
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.030

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→