MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385196217 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-075666

Use and misuse of research: Canada’s response to covid-19 and its health inequalities

2023· article· en· W4385196217 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharmistha Mishra, Jennifer Walker, Linda Wilhelm, Vincent Larivière, Tania Bubela, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversité de MontréalCanadian Arthritis Patient AllianceImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)InequalityHealth equityGeographyEnvironmental healthVirologyMedicinePublic healthOutbreakMathematicsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sharmistha Mishra and colleagues examine how pandemic research contributed to a homogenised public health and clinical response to covid-19 in Canada and how it could have done better

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0220.026
Scholarly communication0.0240.007
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0230.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.924
GPT teacher head0.692
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207