MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811483960 · doi:10.1111/jep.12974

The need for a rationalist turn in evidence‐based medicine

2018· article· en· W2811483960 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael P. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArts and Humanities Research CouncilMcMaster University
KeywordsEmpiricismRationalismRhetoricScholarshipEpistemologyEvidence-based medicineField (mathematics)MedicineSociologyMEDLINEPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When evidence-based medicine (EBM) became established, its dominant rhetoric was empiricist, in spite of rationalist elements in its practice. Exploring some of the key statements about EBM down the years, the paper examines the tensions between empiricism and rationalism and argues for a rationalist turn in EBM to help to develop the next generation of scholarship in the field.

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)0.124
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.113
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1240.113
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.105
Scholarly communication0.0260.044
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0190.045
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.782
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evaluation in Clinical PracticeSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207