MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388325995 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.102058

On finding acceptance

2023· letter· en· W4388325995 on OpenAlexaff
David Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingMentorshipPsychologyMedical educationWorkforceMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Accepted’. This single word drowned out the vernacular in the rest of my acceptance letter to my dream MD/PhD program. In that moment, I was on cloud nine. After all, it was the culmination of both my research and clinical interests that will assuredly set my plan to train as a physician-scientist in oncology into motion. However, celebration soon transformed into empty emotion, and then into anxiety. Why did I feel so lost?

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0200.019
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3170.211

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 head0.392
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 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 venueESMO OpenSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207