MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310718222 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2022.11.014

From singularity to plurality: The case for intersectionality in cardiothoracic surgery research

2022· article· en· W4310718222 on OpenAlexaff
Lina A. Elfaki, Melanie Keshishi, Akachukwu Nwakoby, Dominique Vervoort

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersectionalityCardiothoracic surgeryMedicineGeneral surgerySurgerySociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health services research is increasingly highlighting gaps in equitable cardiothoracic surgical care delivery, but the challenge translating these findings to interventions remains. Preventza and colleagues1 evaluated how the interplay between socioeconomic factors and sex may influence thoracic aortic surgery outcomes. Between 2000 and 2020, men undergoing thoracic aortic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine were associated with more favorable socioeconomic factors, reduced hospital length of stay, and lower rates of complications compared with women.

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)0.236
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.191
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2360.191
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.010
Science and technology studies0.0160.104
Scholarly communication0.0260.058
Open science0.0050.049
Research integrity0.0080.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.583
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.013 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJTCVS OpenSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207