MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3094844007 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038339

Are you really doing ‘codesign’? Critical reflections when working with vulnerable populations

2020· article· en· W3094844007 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandra Moll, Michelle Wyndham‐West, Gillian Mulvale, Sean S. Park, Alexis Buettgen, Michelle Phoenix, Robert Fleisig, Emma Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre on Disability StudiesOntario College of Art and DesignMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsCoproductionCLARITYReflexivityMedicineProcess (computing)Health careCritical reflectionService (business)Public relationsEngineering ethicsProcess managementSociologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.256
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.366
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2560.366
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0440.090
Scholarly communication0.0380.054
Open science0.0090.035
Research integrity0.0290.070
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.757
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.176 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations273
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→