MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157822582 · doi:10.1016/j.anrea.2021.04.012

Quel impact de la présence sur les réseaux sociaux pour un journal médical ? L’exemple de l’équipe dédiée d’Anaesthesia Critical Care and Pain Medicine

2021· article· fr· W3157822582 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Clavier, Stéphanie Sigaut, Fanny Vardon‐Bounes, Arthur James, Denis Frasca, Matthieu Boisson, Anaïs Caillard, Sacha Rozencwajg, Rosanna Njeim, Aude Carillion, Osama Abou‐Arab, Alice Blet, Marc-Olivier Fischer

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthésie & Réanimation · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesContext (archaeology)Political scienceArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pour une revue médicale, la diffusion à grande échelle de chacun de ses articles est aujourd’hui indispensable pour toucher un large public scientifique. Dans ce contexte, l’utilisation du réseau social Twitter permet à chaque nouvelle publication d’être diffusée très rapidement, à faible coût, pour des lecteurs précis et partout dans le monde. C’est de loin le réseau social le plus utilisé pour partager les publications en 2021. Les réflexions autour de ce sujet ont ainsi abouti à la création en novembre 2020 de la Social Media Team (SoMe Team) d’Anaesthesia Critical Care and Pain Medicine, le journal anglophone international de la Société française d’anesthésie et de réanimation (SFAR). Cette équipe est coordonnée par un éditeur en charge des réseaux sociaux, en lien direct avec le rédacteur en chef du journal. Il élabore le planning des tweets en fonction du programme de publication du journal, il flèche le type de contenu qui y sera associé et sollicite les auteurs pour l’obtention d’images ou de courtes vidéos de présentation de leur publication. Le contenu graphique et la diffusion sur Twitter sont assurés par les membres de l’équipe dédiée aux réseaux sociaux. For a medical journal, the large-scale dissemination of each of its articles is nowadays essential to reach a large scientific audience. In this context, the use of the social network Twitter allows each new publication to be disseminated very quickly, at low cost, to specific readers and all around the world. It is by far the most used social network for sharing medical publications in 2021. Reflections on this subject have thus led to the creation in November 2020 of the Social Media Team of Anaesthesia Critical Care and Pain Medicine, the international English-language journal of the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care. This team is coordinated by a Social Media Editor, in direct link with the Editor in Chief of the journal. He establishes the schedule of tweets according to the journal's publication program; he determines the type of content that will be associated with it and solicits the authors to obtain images or short videos presenting their publication. The graphic content and the broadcasting on Twitter are ensured by the team members dedicated to social networks.

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)0.035
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAnesthésie & RéanimationSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207