MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921268172 · doi:10.1089/acm.2019.29066.jjw

Values Align for Researching Whole Systems: A Reflective Overview of the Special Issue

2019· editorial· en· W2921268172 on OpenAlexaff
John Weeks, Heather Boon, Cheryl Ritenbaugh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEngineering ethics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the broader context of the call of Berwick and others toward a multiyear march of the medical industry to become a true health care system, it is possible that the whole system research conversation of 20 years ago was the right conversation, ahead of its time.Perhaps that conversation's time of latency is over.What is certain is that we need to be putting new thinking and new research resources behind new kinds of questions if we are to effectively assess the outcomes of this new/old approach to health.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0200.013
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0220.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary MedicineSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207