MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2329141448 · doi:10.1136/bmj.d7539

Lessons from US reviews show impartiality is needed

2011· letter· en· W2329141448 on OpenAlexaff
Cornelia J. Baines

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpartialityTask forcePolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer securityEngineering ethicsComputer scienceLawPublic administrationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fate of previous independent breast screening reviews, such as the 1997 US National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference and the 2009 United States Preventive Services Task Force,1 2 offers a warning for the so called UK independent review.3 Whatever its conclusions, they will be criticised vociferously.4 Unfortunately, the …

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)0.196
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.488
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1960.488
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0200.035
Open science0.0080.013
Research integrity0.0460.061
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.110 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→