MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2737923648 · doi:10.1136/bmj.j3336

Margaret McCartney: Charities should respect evidence

2017· article· en· W2737923648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margaret McCartney

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being well off and well connected is no barrier to a belief in nonsense. In fact, the more money you have, the easier it seems for healthcare professionals to liberate you from it. Justin Trudeau, Canada’s premier, created a new science post at cabinet level and is willing to explain quantum computing to a press pack.1 But even he undergoes cupping,2 an evidence-free complementary therapy used by self styled lifestyle gurus such as Gwyneth Paltrow.3 Reading systematic reviews, I despair at the lack of adequate evidence for this intervention.4 A recent supplement in the Financial …

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.298
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.298
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.021
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0250.053
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.022

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 head0.379
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 venueBMJ→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→