MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205278854 · doi:10.1190/int-2021-1001-fe.1

Call for discussions in <i>Interpretation</i>

2021· article· en· W3205278854 on OpenAlexaff
Balázs Németh

Bibliographic record

VenueInterpretation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsBHP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologyPhilosophyPsychologyComputer scienceLinguistics

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)0.165
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.428
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1650.428
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0200.028
Scholarly communication0.0350.035
Open science0.0130.031
Research integrity0.1160.123
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0870.051

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.402 · 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
GenreEditorial

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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterpretationSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207