MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321505790 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08360-0_1

Introduction: What Does It Mean to Do the Health Humanities in Application?

2023· book-chapter· en· W4321505790 on OpenAlex
Christian Riegel, Katherine M. Robinson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable development goals series · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsCampion CollegeUniversity of Regina
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of ReginaUniversity of OxfordJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsDigital humanitiesMedical humanitiesHumanitiesField (mathematics)Health careSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineArtMedical educationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter examines key developments in the evolution of the health humanities, beginning with the field’s relationship to the medical humanities. The health humanities are presented as a field that has a wide range of intellectual interests and practical applications, serving researchers, educators, students, health care practitioners, and community members wherever health and wellness and the humanities intersect. Central to the focus of this book is the health humanities as inherently applied: how we do the health humanities forms a core approach. The chapter serves as an introduction to the health humanities and provides insight to the health humanities as an important intellectual and practical concern in the current moment.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.262 · 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