MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409281992

What are you prepared to see?

2011· article· en· W2409281992 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Patient Safety Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)NursingPsychologyMedicineMedical emergencyEpistemologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hospital system is made up of interconnecting circles of complex activity; however, we are conditioned to see and think in straight lines. What we see depends on what we are prepared to see. This article asks the question: What do you see in terms of patient safety and quality of care?

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.008

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
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 venuePubMedSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207