MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804446098 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.69212

Whom should we really call a “doctor”?

2018· letter· en· W2804446098 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Abdul‐Fattah A. Asfour, James Winter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAlternative medicineFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is in response to the News article by Roger Collier.[1][1] These days many health professionals use the title “doctor.” Indeed, The Canadian Press Stylebook now decrees that the title of doctor should be reserved for physicians. Physicians, surgeons, dentists, chiropodists, university

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMedical and Biological SciencesFrench-language works237,207