Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care is a human process that generates data from human lives, as well as the care they receive. Machine learning has worked in health to bring new technology into this sociotechnical environment, using data to support a vision of healthier living for everyone. Interdisciplinary fields of research like machine learning for health bring different values and judgements together, requiring that those value choices be deliberate and measured. More than just abstract ideas, our values are the basis upon which we choose our research topics, set up research collaborations, execute our research methodologies, make assessments of scientific and technical correctness, proceed to product development, and finally operationalize deployments and describe policy. For machine learning to achieve its aims of supporting healthier living while minimizing harm, we believe that a deeper introspection of our field’s values and contentions is overdue. In this perspective, we highlight notable areas in need of attention within the field. We believe deliberate and informed introspection will lead our community to renewed opportunities for understanding disease, new partnerships with clinicians and patients, and allow us to better support people and communities to live healthier, dignified lives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".