MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206805727 · doi:10.7748/ns.15.33.26.s44

Fighting fraud

2001· article· en· W4206805727 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Beacock

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Standard · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Work (physics)Internet privacyRisk analysis (engineering)Public relationsNursingComputer scienceMedicinePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nurses are no strangers to the need to prevent waste and provide cost-effective systems of care. Generally, this requires us to think critically about the systems we work in and the products we use. In the past few years, however, another aspect of cost in the NHS has received greater attention from the media and the government - fraud.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0190.017
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0170.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing StandardSame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207