MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2609221770 · doi:10.3399/bjgp17x690665

The fate of the frog: doctors as instruments of the state

2017· article· en· W2609221770 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Lowth

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsWorld Federation of Science Journalists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineData scienceState (computer science)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent press reports suggested that some UK victims of gang-related knife crime don’t seek medical help as they will be reported to the police and targeted as informers.1,2 UK doctors are legally required to report criminal knife injuries to the state,3 which conflicts with our duty of confidentiality but aims for the greater good. I have never questioned it, possibly because I have never treated a stab wound, but also because I have spent my career inside a legal and professional box within whose boundaries I feel ethically secure. If those boundaries have been openly debated I have not …

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.061
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.383 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of General PracticeSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207