MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991862006 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v4i1.1124

Concept Dictionary and Glossary at MCHP

2019· article· en· W2991862006 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Smith, Ken Turner, Ruth Bond, Tiva Kawakami, Leslíe L. Roos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Coding and Health Information
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlossaryDocumentationComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)GlobeData scienceGovernment (linguistics)Knowledge managementTerminologyWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Manitoba Centre for Health Policy's Concept Dictionary and Glossary, and the Data Repository they document, broaden the analytic possibilities associated with administrative data. The aim of the Repository is to describe and explain patterns of health care and illness, while the Concept Dictionary and Glossary create consistency in documenting research methodologies. The Concept Dictionary alone contains detailed operational definitions and programming code for measures used in MCHP research that are reusable in future projects. Making these tools available on the internet allows reaching a heterogeneous audience of academic and government health service partners, epidemiologists, planners, programmers, clinicians, and students extending around the globe. They aid in the retention of corporate knowledge, facilitate researcher/analyst communication, and enhance the Centre's knowledge translation activities. Such documentation has saved countless hours for programmers, analysts and researchers who frequently need to tread paths previously taken by others.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.029
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1880.094

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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicMedical Coding and Health InformationFrench-language works237,207