MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232294806 · doi:10.1080/09581590802551281

Responses to Don Nutbeam's commentary: what would the Ottawa Charter look like if it were written today?

2008· article· en· W4232294806 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Public Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPolitical scienceMedia studiesHistorySociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trevor Hancock, Canada For me, the Ottawa Charter is relevant almost every working day. Only today, I was speaking at a conference on health equity and social determinants. I used the set of prereq...

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.143
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 score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.143
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0300.022
Scholarly communication0.0190.010
Open science0.0100.009
Research integrity0.1670.173
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCritical Public HealthSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207