MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uitspraken van de Governancecommissie Gezondheidszorg: de dans rond de stoel van de bestuurder

2016· article· nl· W2474838931 on OpenAlexaff
Ageeth Klaassen

Bibliographic record

VenueTijdschrift voor Gezondheidsrecht · 2016
Typearticle
Languagenl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDutch Social and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uitspraken van de Governancecommissie Gezondheidszorg: de dans rond de stoel van de bestuurder In de periode 2011-2015 heeft de Governancecommissie Gezondheidszorg zeven uitspraken gepubliceerd. Doel van deze bijdrage is een analyse te geven van deze uitspraken. Hieruit blijkt onder meer dat de Governancecommissie een beperkte rolopvatting hanteert. Zij definieert het begrip belanghebbende ruim. Het toetsingskader dat de Governancecommissie gebruikt bij het overnemen van de bestuurstaak door een lid van de raad van toezicht kan consistenter zijn.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTijdschrift voor GezondheidsrechtSame topicDutch Social and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207