MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326887270 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000000579

Controversy about hypertension screening in children

2015· editorial· en· W2326887270 on OpenAlexaffabout
Arnaud Chioléro, Pascal Bovet, Gilles Paradis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2015
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpidemiologyBiostatisticsUniversity hospitalFamily medicineGerontologyPreventive healthcarePublic healthInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

aDivision of Chronic Diseases, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland bDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Correspondence to Arnaud Chiolero, MD, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Biopôle 2, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.Tel: +41 21 314 72 72; fax: +41 21 314 73 73; e-mail: [email protected] Received 28 November, 2014 Revised 15 February, 2015 Accepted 25 February, 2015

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0190.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207