MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947661356 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.190352

Facilitating the wishes of patients who choose both MAiD and organ donation

2019· letter· en· W2947661356 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Johannes Mulder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgan donationContext (archaeology)DonationKey (lock)MedicineComputer scienceSurgeryLawTransplantationPolitical scienceComputer securityHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[See related article at [www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.181648][2]][2] KEY POINTS The linked article by Downar and colleagues presents guidance for policy for managing deceased organ donation in conscious, competent donors who request medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in the Canadian context

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)0.026
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0340.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207