MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937805750 · doi:10.5114/jhi.2018.83587

Letter to the Editors concerning the paper “Ambient air pollution and lung cancer in Poland: research findings and gaps”

2018· letter· en· W2937805750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michał Krzyżanowski, Wojciech Hanke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Inequalities · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancerInequalitySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Krzyżanowski M, Hanke W. Letter to the Editors concerning the paper “Ambient air pollution and lung cancer in Poland: research findings and gaps”. Journal of Health Inequalities. 2018;4(2):97-98. doi:10.5114/jhi.2018.83587. APA Krzyżanowski, M., & Hanke, W. (2018). Letter to the Editors concerning the paper “Ambient air pollution and lung cancer in Poland: research findings and gaps”. Journal of Health Inequalities, 4(2), 97-98. https://doi.org/10.5114/jhi.2018.83587 Chicago Krzyżanowski, Michał, and Wojciech Hanke. 2018. "Letter to the Editors concerning the paper “Ambient air pollution and lung cancer in Poland: research findings and gaps”". Journal of Health Inequalities 4 (2): 97-98. doi:10.5114/jhi.2018.83587. Harvard Krzyżanowski, M., and Hanke, W. (2018). Letter to the Editors concerning the paper “Ambient air pollution and lung cancer in Poland: research findings and gaps”. Journal of Health Inequalities, 4(2), pp.97-98. https://doi.org/10.5114/jhi.2018.83587 MLA Krzyżanowski, Michał et al. "Letter to the Editors concerning the paper “Ambient air pollution and lung cancer in Poland: research findings and gaps”." Journal of Health Inequalities, vol. 4, no. 2, 2018, pp. 97-98. doi:10.5114/jhi.2018.83587. Vancouver Krzyżanowski M, Hanke W. Letter to the Editors concerning the paper “Ambient air pollution and lung cancer in Poland: research findings and gaps”. Journal of Health Inequalities. 2018;4(2):97-98. doi:10.5114/jhi.2018.83587.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0120.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.014

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.357 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health InequalitiesSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207