MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787772674 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30199-5

Should basic science matter to clinicians?

2018· article· en· W2787772674 on OpenAlexaff
Niall C.J. Filewod, Jane Batt, András Kapùs, Katalin Szászi, Gregory D. Fairn, Arthur S. Slutsky, Warren L. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusMedical educationLibrary scienceWeb of scienceContinuing medical educationMedicineMEDLINEBasic researchPsychologyFamily medicineContinuing educationPolitical scienceComputer sciencePathologyMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.130
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.491
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 score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1300.491
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.029
Scholarly communication0.0230.031
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0570.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.013

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 head0.384
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207