MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2943004441 · doi:10.1136/sbmj.0603130b

Our attitudes towards patients

2006· article· en· W2943004441 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa Pun

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebText miningMedicineInformation retrievalNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lecturer was trying to make a point: “The hand that writes the opiate writes the laxative. You may not think that constipation is such a big deal, but wait until you're on the wards next year guess who gets to do the digital disimpactions?” He left the podium amid laughter and groans. No one wanted to be the clerk stuck with that task. The next lecturer was a nurse: “It's 10 times worse for the patient. I don't think you realise how painful and humiliating it is for a patient to have to go through something like that.” …

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.004

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.397 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→