MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2416615990 · doi:10.1177/070674370104600501

Evidence-Based Psychiatry: The Pros and Cons

2001· letter· en· W2416615990 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M Dongier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsconsPsychologyPsychiatryMEDLINEMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-Based Psychiatry: The Pros and Cons T he de vel op ment of med i cine as a sci ence only dates back to the 19th cen tury.But Lesage, Stip and Grunberg (1) remind us that Galen, nearly 2000 years ago, had al ready iden tified 2 cul tures among phy si cians-the "empiricists" (ev i dence-based) and the "ra tio nal ists" (also called "subjectivists").Clearly, the meth ods of the empiricists are the very dis tant an ces tors of mod ern ev i dence-based med icine (EBM), even though the cur rent cri te ria for "ev i dence" are more de fined.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.191
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.191
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0510.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicHealth Sciences Research and Education→French-language works237,207→