MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937501157 · doi:10.4088/jcp.19lr12741a

Dr Nurnberger and Colleagues Reply

2019· letter· en· W2937501157 on OpenAlexaff
John I. Nürnberger, Jehannine Austin, Wade H. Berrettini, Aaron D. Besterman, Lynn E. DeLisi, Dorothy E. Grice, James Kennedy, Daniel Moreno‐De‐Luca, James B. Potash, David A. Ross, Thomas G. Schulze, Gwyneth Zai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsIdentification (biology)PsychologySPARK (programming language)Engineering ethicsEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Article Abstract Because this piece does not have an abstract, we have provided for your benefit the first 3 sentences of the full text. To the Editor: We would like to respond to the letter by de Leon regarding our recently published article on what a psychiatrist should know about genetics.1 We appreciate Dr de Leon's interests, as this is the type of critical thinking about genetics that we are ultimately hoping to spark among psychiatrists in training and in current practice. We would also like to stress that the main objective of our article was to provide a framework for the identification of areas of genetics that psychiatrists should know, as well as mechanisms and resources to acquire that knowledge.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0330.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.370
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PsychiatrySame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207