MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988825277 · doi:10.5694/mja2.50409

Australian Health Research Alliance: national priorities in data‐driven health care improvement

2019· article· en· W2988825277 on OpenAlexaff
Helena Teede, Alison Johnson, Jim Buttery, Cheryl Jones, Douglas Boyle, Garry Jennings, Tim Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Medical Journal of Australia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsAllianceHealth carePublic relationsContent (measure theory)Health informationHealth dataPolitical scienceData scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors are leaders across the AHRTC and are embedded within academic and health care organisations. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

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)0.141
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.145
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1410.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0050.017
Research integrity0.0150.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.595
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Medical Journal of AustraliaSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207