MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792356669 · doi:10.1136/bmj.e8484

Only a quarter of first CCGs are fully authorised

2012· article· en· W2792356669 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helen Jaques

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Services Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthorizationProject commissioningQuarter (Canadian coin)Statutory lawLegislationBusinessLawComputer securityComputer sciencePolitical sciencePublishingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Only eight of the 34 clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in the first wave to be signed off by the NHS Commissioning Board have met all 119 authorisation criteria. The remaining 26 have been authorised with conditions that they are expected to meet by March next year, before they take up their statutory responsibilities in April 2013. Most of the CCGs given conditional authorisation have five or fewer conditions to meet across the six authorisation domains. But one CCG needs to meet 14 conditions be fully authorised, and …

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1150.042

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth Services Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207