MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296884657 · doi:10.21649/akemu.v28i1.4990

Artificial Intelligence and Medical Education

2022· article· en· W4296884657 on OpenAlexaff
Sarwat Hussain, Danish Bhatti

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of King Edward Medical University · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)CertaintyBayes' theoremArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEvent (particle physics)Computer sciencePosterior probabilityAnalyticsBayesian probabilityProcess (computing)Data miningMathematicsMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer sciences that uses learning algorithms to calculate probability of outcome by using Bayes theorem and other statistical methods for a given certain input (Fig.1). When the chance of an event occurring is calculated over and over again after adding new data or evidence at each step, the probability can reach the level of near certainty for given inputs. Thousands, even millions of data points are incorporated in calculating posterior probability for predictive analytics. The analytics are input neutral as programs predict the future events irrespective of the type of the data. AI has, thus, blurred the boundaries between the physical, digital, and biological worlds. The initial learning process is considered training where inputs are given to the program already marked for the expected outcome. This training information can either be highly precise or very vague allowing different degrees of freedom to the program but also increasing the burden of training. Once trained an AI algorithm is able to predict or analyze given input to suggest the required outcome with some certainty. This improves with continued training through feedback.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueAnnals of King Edward Medical UniversitySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207