MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888493973 · doi:10.36834/cmej.43025

Are we failing to “build on the scientific basis of medicine?”

2018· article· en· W2888493973 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sylvain Coderre, Ira Ripstein, Pamela Veale, Kevin McLaughlin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlternative medicineMedical educationPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we question if and why the Canadian national medical education organizations have failed to introduce or promote changes that compel or encourage Canadian medical schools to heed the recommendation from the Future of Medical Education in Canada report to "build on the scientific basis of medicine." We end by offering suggestions on how these organizations could help Canadian medical schools build in the scientific basis of medicine.

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)0.131
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.275
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1310.275
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0230.081
Scholarly communication0.0210.030
Open science0.0070.013
Research integrity0.0220.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207