MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2420458489 · doi:10.7748/nm.15.9.10.s16

Time and space to think

2009· article· en· W2420458489 on OpenAlexaff
A. Jerry Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Work (physics)Service (business)Health careNursingPsychologyHealthcare servicePublic relationsSociologyBusinessComputer scienceMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is one example of the ways the RCNCS works. A summary of key principles that apply to all our work is given in Box 2. In addition to the example above, the RCNCS is currently working with acute trusts, mental health trusts, health boards, primary care trusts and independent sector organisations across England and Scotland, and in Australia, the Republic of Ireland and Switzerland. The focus of this work varies. Some of the different development opportunities the service can provide are given in Box 3.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.033
Scholarly communication0.0260.030
Open science0.0030.019
Research integrity0.0070.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.034

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.399 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing ManagementSame topicHealth Services Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207