MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751599728 · doi:10.1177/0840470417716949

Cognitive bias in health leaders

2017· article· en· W2751599728 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Campbell, Pat Croskerry, David Petrie

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive biasCognitionConfirmation biasPsychologyCognitive psychologyPublic relationsSocial psychologyComputer scienceManagement sciencePolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive bias can be a serious impediment to rational decision-making by health leaders. We use a hypothetical case study to introduce some basic concepts of bias with examples of mitigation strategies. We argue that the effect of biases should be considered when making every significant administrative decision.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207