MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482067677 · doi:10.1080/15265161.2016.1196762

On the Curious Range of Responses to Our Curious Case: Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Curious Case of the De-ICD: Negotiating the Dynamics of Autonomy and Paternalism in Complex Clinical Relationships”

2016· letter· en· W2482067677 on OpenAlexaff
Daryl Pullman, Kathleen Hodgkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Bioethics · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaternalismNegotiationAutonomyRuminationPsychologyDynamics (music)Social psychologyPersonal autonomySociologyPolitical scienceLawPedagogySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We begin by thanking those who provided open peer commentaries for their thoughtful and often insightful responses. An initial observation is that despite more than 40 years of rumination in the bi...

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.190
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.190
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0570.079
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.721
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.117 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of BioethicsSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207