MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013396950 · doi:10.3389/978-2-88963-298-5

Public Participation in Health Care: Exploring the Co-Production of Knowledge

2020· book· en· W3013396950 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers research topics · 2020
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersProgramme Grants for Applied ResearchMedical Research CouncilNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South LondonEconomic and Social Research CouncilEuropean CommissionNational Research FoundationKing's College LondonSt. George's, University of LondonKingston UniversitySouth African Medical Research CouncilUniversity of WarwickNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustInternational Development Research CentreWellcome TrustDepartment of Health and Social Care
KeywordsProduction (economics)Knowledge productionHealth careBusinessPublic healthPolitical scienceKnowledge managementMedicineNursingComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frontiers is more than just an open-access publisher of scholarly articles: it is a pioneering approach to the world of academia, radically improving the way scholarly research is managed.The grand vision of Frontiers is a world where all people have an equal opportunity to seek, share and generate knowledge.Frontiers provides immediate and permanent online open access to all its publications, but this alone is not enough to realize our grand goals. Frontiers Journal SeriesThe Frontiers Journal Series is a multi-tier and interdisciplinary set of open-access, online journals, promising a paradigm shift from the current review, selection and dissemination processes in academic publishing.All Frontiers journals are driven by researchers for researchers; therefore, they constitute a service to the scholarly community.At the same time, the Frontiers Journal Series operates on a revolutionary invention, the tiered publishing system, initially addressing specific communities of scholars, and gradually climbing up to broader public understanding, thus serving the interests of the lay society, too. Dedication to QualityEach Frontiers article is a landmark of the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors and review editors, who include some of the world's best academicians.Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public -and shape society; therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews.Frontiers revolutionizes research publishing by freely delivering the most outstanding research, evaluated with no bias from both the academic and social point of view.By applying the most advanced information technologies, Frontiers is catapulting scholarly publishing into a new generation.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptMetaresearchScience and technology studies
Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.082
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.151
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0820.151
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0130.034
Scholarly communication0.0320.025
Open science0.0040.040
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.428
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.051 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Science and technology studiesMetaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual · Not applicable
DomainMethods
GenreOther · Commentary

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers research topicsSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207