MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2617763559 · doi:10.1002/mp.12373

Due to potential concerns of bias and conflicts of interest, regulatory bodies should not do evaluation methodology research related to their regulatory missions

2017· article· en· W2617763559 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dev P. Chakraborty, Robert M. Nishikawa, Colin G. Orton

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropositionLibrary sciencePolitical sciencePoint (geometry)CounterpointOperations researchLawSociologyEngineeringComputer scienceEpistemologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persons participating in Point

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)0.529
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.722
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5290.722
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0110.066
Scholarly communication0.0300.033
Open science0.0090.011
Research integrity0.0390.052
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.726
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.183 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→