MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785207165

Composition of Canadian Pain Society guideline development group?

2018· letter· en· W2785207165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joel Lexchin

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)GuidelineChronic painPain managementAlternative medicineNeuropathic painMedicineAsideComposition (language)Family medicinePhysical therapyPolitical sciencePharmacologyPathologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The review of the Canadian Pain Society consensus statement on the pharmacologic management of chronic neuropathic pain in the November 2017 issue of Canadian Family Physician [1][1] does a good job of summarizing the recommendations in the guidelines.[2][2] However, aside from a statement that the

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.009

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207