MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3148018675 · doi:10.3122/jabfm.2021.02.200520

ABFM Journal Club's Focus on Critical Appraisal of Full Research Articles Is Misplaced

2021· letter· en· W3148018675 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth W. Lin, Henry C Barry, Mark H. Ebell, Roland Grad, Allen F. Shaughnessy, Jay Siwek, David C. Slawson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJournal clubMedicineClubCertificationCritical appraisalMedical educationFamily medicineAlternative medicineManagementPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor: We read with interest the commentary by Drs. Quan and Newton describing the plan of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) to develop a Journal Club as an optional continuing certification activity.[1][1] They propose to have a national committee select 100 high-quality,

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.269
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.269
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0660.073
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.012

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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the American Board of Family MedicineSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207