MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763652143 · doi:10.12968/joan.2017.6.8.440

Boost your business growth without partaking in the race to the bottom

2017· article· en· W2763652143 on OpenAlexaff
Lee Cottrill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aesthetic Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRace (biology)Competition (biology)Race to the bottomMarketingPolitical economyPolitical scienceEconomicsMarket economyBusinessSociologyGender studiesEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The medical aesthetics market gets bigger every year—it is an exciting and vibrant place to be for practitioners and patients alike. For those setting up or trying to grow their business, however, the rapid rise in competition can be a daunting prospect. Lee Cottrill explains why trying to win on price is actually a lose-lose game and shares some pragmatic tips for what you can do about it

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)0.054
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0210.021
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0110.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.081

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 venueJournal of Aesthetic NursingSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207