MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902846096 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.71018

The authors respond to “Tread carefully with #MeToo in the medical profession”

2018· letter· en· W2902846096 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jayna Holroyd‐Leduc, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarassmentTreadMedical professionComputer scienceData scienceProcess (computing)MedicineMedical educationNursingChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr. Satenstein for his interest in our editorial and this important topic.[1][1],[2][2] We completely agree that it is critical to have an appropriate investigation process that is transparent and objective when any harassment allegations are made. We also agree that there are different

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0310.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.010

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207