MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110743831 · doi:10.1503/cjs.022620

Do we need to reassess the meaning of “team” in our health care environments?

2020· article· en· W3110743831 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chad G. Ball, Edward J. Harvey, Melinda Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicThe Impact of Diversity and Innovation on Society
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeaning (existential)Health careTerm (time)NursingGerontologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of the word “team” has become ubiquitous in health care and in life. Irrespective of the number of members or tasks at hand, it seems that most groups within our daily environment are now suffixed with the term. Although most of us don’t frequently stop to consider its superfluous use

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.054
Scholarly communication0.0130.051
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0170.063
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.301
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicThe Impact of Diversity and Innovation on SocietyFrench-language works237,207