MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2888299949 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.69635

The impact of neglecting unearned advantage

2018· letter· en· W2888299949 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Samantha Green, Stephanie Nixon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Physiotherapy AssociationUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Vulnerability (computing)Health careMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawGeographyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Beth Clark and Nina Preto for their recent article, “Exploring the concept of vulnerability in health care.”[1][1] We appreciate their analysis of the term “vulnerable” and other terms used to describe groups at increased risk for poor health, particularly in the context of CMAJ ’

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)0.054
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0550.075
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.386 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→