Bibliographic record
Abstract
IKE the Israelites in the desert, for nearly 40 years wehave wandered, wringing our hands over the future ofgeneral practice as a discipline and attempting to find thePromised Land: a research agenda for general practice andfamily medicine. W e know that one of the defining charac-teristics of an academic discipline is that it has a distinctbody of knowledge that is advanced by scholarship and canbe taught to practitioners in the discipline. W e have strug-gled to define what scholarship should be in our specialty .How different we are from other disciplines! One does nothear the internists or the surgeons struggling over whatshould be their research agenda. There is a fundamentalexpectation that their researchers will ply their trade andtransfer the information to practitioners. Why are we so self -referential and unsure of ourselves that we worry aboutdefining a research agenda for general practice? Do weneed to justify that we are honest members of the academ-ic establishment?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.128 | 0.275 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.049 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".