MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385446994 · doi:10.1038/s41433-023-02662-1

Correction: Save our Sight (SOS): a collective call-to-action for enhanced retinal care across health systems in high income countries

2023· erratum· en· W4385446994 on OpenAlexaff
Anat Loewenstein, Alan R. Berger, Avril Daly, Catherine Creuzot‐Garcher, Richard Gale, Federico Ricci, Javier Zarranz‐Ventura, Robyn H. Guymer

Bibliographic record

VenueEye · 2023
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSightCall to actionOptometryAction (physics)RetinalMedicineOphthalmologyBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article “Save our Sight (SOS): a collective call-to-action for enhanced retinal care across health systems in high income countries”, written by Anat Loewenstein, Alan Berger, Avril Daly, Catherine Creuzot-Garcher, Richard Gale, Federico Ricci, Javier Zarranz-Ventura and Robyn Guymer was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal on 6 June without open access. With the author(s)’ decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 17 June 2023 to © The Authors 2023 and the article is forthwith distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The original article has been corrected.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0130.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.026

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEyeSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207