MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592279398 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201701-0076cp

Gender Parity in Critical Care Medicine

2017· review· en· W2592279398 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkBC Children's HospitalHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteCanadian Cardiovascular Society
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineParity (physics)Health careRepresentation (politics)Diversity (politics)Family medicineMEDLINENursingGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances. These documents inform and shape patient care around the world. In this Perspective we discuss the importance of diversity on guideline panels, the disproportionately low representation of women on critical care guideline panels, and existing initiatives to increase the representation of women in corporations, universities, and government. We propose five strategies to ensure gender parity within critical care medicine.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.417
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.180 · 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