MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4253199501 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040568

Correction

2004· article· en· W4253199501 on OpenAlexaffvenue
James Orbinski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

draft Bill C-9 is one of the many potential stumbling blocks described in my commentary. 1 Whether the early praise offered by the WHO and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health is deserved will depend on the provisions of the final bill.As I write this (late March 2004), public hearings on the bill are still in progress.Medical students, faculty members and practising health care professionals can make their opinions heard by contacting their MP or the prime minister's office directly.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0100.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1030.068

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
Domainnot available
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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism→French-language works237,207→