MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2306358236

The Conundrum of Confidentiality

2013· article· en· W2306358236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barbara Stimmel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of psychoanalysis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityInternet privacyComputer securityComputer sciencePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Of what would an analysis consist if one of its essential elements were compromised? How does the need to protect our patients' confidentiality deform our communications and, conversely, how does the need to discuss patients deform their treatment relationships? Could we ever be sure that we would recognize the difference between analysis and fiction? What is this thing we easily label confidentiality, yet about which we have an uneasy consensus? And can we be sure of the answers we give ourselves?

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)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.152
Scholarly communication0.0190.053
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0210.053
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of psychoanalysisSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207