MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298737937 · doi:10.3928/0022-0124-20040301-12

The Prohibitive Costs of Accessing Evidence Online

2004· article· en· W2298737937 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Edwards, Donna Lockett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermissionInternet privacyThe InternetBusinessPublic relationsWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delivering continuing education online involves making published materials available to learners. As part of a study that examined the use of the Internet for dissemination of information, permission to provide resources online was sought from 43 publishers, of whom 36 responded. Four (11.1%) denied permission to copy their materials. Seven (19.4%) granted permission to copy articles at no cost. The remaining 25 (69.4%) granted permission for a fee, ranging from dollar 2 to dollar 410 per article. These findings highlight a need for more accessible and cost-effective online resources to meet the challenges of evidence-based programs and practice in public health.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.417 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Continuing Education in NursingSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207