MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281714358 · doi:10.2196/39041

Peer Review of “Exploring the Reasons for Low Cataract Surgery Uptake Among Patients Detected in a Community Outreach Program in Cameroon: Focused Ethnographic Mixed Methods Study”

2022· article· en· W4281714358 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandros Argyriadis

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIRx Med · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachEthnographyMedicineMedical educationCataract surgeryOptometryFamily medicinePsychologyNursingSociologyOphthalmologyPolitical scienceAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.313
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.313
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.010

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIRx MedSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207