Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulators face unique pressures to balance competing priorities related to patient safety, public accountability, and practitioners' expectations. Historically, the collegial model of self-regulation has been used as a tool for risk management, to recognize the importance of profession- and context-specific judgment in complex, ambiguous clinical situations. Increasingly, as public accountability concerns have grown dominant within regulatory bodies, this collegial model has shifted toward a more antagonistic relationship between the regulators and the regulated. Wilkie and Tzountzouris (2017) highlight one profession's journey toward embedding professionalism within regulatory practices and policies through application of a right-touch regulatory philosophy. Given the complexity of regulatory work, this shift required significant strategic and deliberative thinking. The challenges of facilitating this sort of cultural shift in the role of a regulator are significant, but so too are the potential gains associated with a more engaged relationship between regulators and their practitioners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.120 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".