MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2806465427 · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.03.016

Rebuttal From Dr Mazzone

2018· editorial· en· W2806465427 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter J. Mazzone

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Journal · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineLung cancerLung cancer screeningScopusMedicaidFamily medicineCitationMEDLINEHealth careInternal medicinePathologyLibrary scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Important advances occur when well-intentioned experts with differences of opinion work together. To this end, prior to digesting the content of Dr Wood’s essay,1 I deleted the phrases “intellectually simple” and “naive and myopic” from his text. The important content of Dr Wood’s argument left me with two conclusions. First, he has not carefully read the updated CHEST lung cancer screening guidelines,2 and second, he believes that everyone with an equal risk of developing lung cancer has an equal balance of benefit and harms from screening.

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)0.100
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0230.048
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.027

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreEditorial

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 venueCHEST Journal→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→