MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033423249 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-102418

The patient as person: an update

2020· editorial· en· W3033423249 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn P. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)Glycemic Index Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth carePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I live with a chronic, incurable disease called rheumatoid arthritis (RA). According to my healthcare system, this makes me a patient. But I can tell you I consider myself a lot of other things before I introduce myself to anyone as a patient or as a person who lives with RA. In fact those words (patient, person living with RA) are the ones I choose only when I’m in the healthcare system or when I’m part of some type of project that includes a patient perspective. Those words make me feel less empowered, less influential and less skilled than the others at the table in those situations. I am quite certain that when I’m in professional situations where I offer myself up as a patient, I am looked at ‘differently’—and not in a ‘good way’ of differently. I contend that most patients don’t identify themselves as a patient first and foremost–this is a label imposed on us by our healthcare systems. Sarah Riggare is a person who lives with Parkinson’s disease and who uses a stunning visual and explanation to convey how little time she spends with her neurologist annually: ‘I visit my neurologist twice a year, for about 30 min. That is one hour per year. The rest of the year’s 8765 hours, I spend in self-care’.1 This is similar to the time I spend annually with my …

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0160.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207