Bibliographic record
Abstract
Readers of the current issue, especially if they are Canadian by extraction, will be delighted to see in its pages a major representation of the work of their country. The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, for its part, is particularly delighted to publish three major contributions from the distinguished scholar at McGill University, Olli Miettinen. The first piece, the Editor's Choice and the subject of an introductory editorial, is a remarkable work of scholarly activity and incisive thinking, logically structured over the course of some 12 articles, and of immediate significance to the literature on the definitions and concepts that are foundational to, and which should functionally underpin, the basis and philosophy of medicine and thus the evaluation and development of effective clinical practice. Having considered the deficiencies in our current understanding of the elementary concepts of medicine with the sheer depth of insight and vision that routinely characterize Miettinen's work, we move to the additional two pieces from the same author, the first concerned with notions of professionalism in medicine and the second with the debate on, and progress of, Canadian health care reform. Both of these articles demonstrate a detailed understanding of, and personal engagement with, the range of issues at hand and the nature of these papers is such that the Journal specifically invites further communications from interested colleagues on the arguments presented, in all of its established formats of publication. From Canada we move elsewhere in North America to a stimulating contribution from McGorty and Bornstein at the University of Nebraska evaluating and discussing the barriers to physicians’ decisions to discuss hospice. Finally, the issue closes with an European contribution where Thilly and co-workers describe their work dedicated to the improvement of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors use in hospital inpatients admitted with heart failure through the implementation of clinical practice guidelines developed and trialled for this purpose.
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 | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.195 | 0.225 |
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".