MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210322238 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.220055

Correction to “Patient-reported outcomes in Canadian cancer research”

2022· erratum· en· W4210322238 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2022
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData scienceText miningCancerInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebMedicineData miningInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CMAJ has been made aware of an error that occurred in the Nov. 15, 2021, issue.[1][1] Reference 10 of this article should have credited Fedir Razumenko as the interviewer for this oral history. This has been corrected at cmaj.ca. 1. [↵][2]1. Razumenko F . Patient-reported outcomes in

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)0.290
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.290
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0080.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.032

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.490
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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→