MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108079712 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2020.26356

Commentary: Cautionary Notes on Exemption Elimination

2020· letter· fr· W3108079712 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lori G. Beaman

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2020
Typeletter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlourishingPoint (geometry)PopulationDemocracyOrder (exchange)Law and economicsPower (physics)Space (punctuation)Range (aeronautics)Political scienceInternet privacySociologyLawComputer scienceBusinessPsychologySocial psychologyPoliticsEngineeringMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A flourishing democracy should have a great deal of space for a wide range of beliefs and practices.The issue of vaccine hesitancy requires that we have as much data and information as possible in order to determine the precise point at which those beliefs and practices may endanger others or the population as a whole.Imposing restrictions before determining that point is about power rather than protection, and ultimately alienates portions of the population. RésuméUne démocratie saine doit prévoir suffisamment d' espace pour une vaste gamme de croyances et de pratiques.La question de la réticence à la vaccination demande que nous ayons en main toutes les données possibles afin de déterminer le point précis où ces croyances et pratiques peuvent mettre en danger des individus ou l' ensemble de la population.Imposer des restrictions avant de connaître ce point est plus une question de pouvoir que de protection et, en bout de ligne, peut aliéner des segments de la population.T

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.1810.112
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.014

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.291 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207