MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do we need another protocol for assessing the validity of blood pressure measuring devices?

2002· letter· en· W2334810326 on OpenAlexaffabout
Norman R.C. Campbell, Donald W. McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Pressure Monitoring · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureProtocol (science)University hospitalFamily medicineGerontologyEmergency medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

aDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary Clinical Hypertension Research Group, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada bFaculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada Correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr N. Campbell, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Drive, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 4N1 Tel: +1 403 220 6882; fax: +1 403 283 6151 Received 18 December 2001 Accepted 21 December 2001

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)0.253
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.469
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2530.469
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0140.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.011

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood Pressure MonitoringSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207