MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2574210963 · doi:10.24297/jssr.v7i2.3562

EPISTEMOLOGY: FOR POLICY ANALYSTS AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT

2015· article· en· W2574210963 on OpenAlexaff
Bobby Thomas Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsHealth PEI
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careProcess (computing)Knowledge managementHealthcare policyPolicy developmentBusinessEngineering ethicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceHealth policyComputer scienceEngineeringPublic administrationHealth care reform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A persons outlook on research is important to understand when teams are developing healthcare policies and clinical standards. Often there are conflicts as physicians, healthcare workers, analysts and others bring unique knowledge systems together. Epistemology, the possible ways of gaining knowledge of social realities, is a term which policy analysts can better understand to support the policy development process.

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)0.153
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1530.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0270.088
Scholarly communication0.0570.102
Open science0.0060.030
Research integrity0.0360.047
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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 head0.483
GPT teacher head0.678
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCHSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207