MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391684223 · doi:10.1186/s40900-024-00552-8

Engaging critically: exploring the varying roles of lived experience advisors in an implementation science study on management of opioid prescribing

2024· letter· en· W4391684223 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Nicholas Angl, Celia Laur, Michael Strange, Barbara Sklar, Mina Tadrous, Noah Ivers

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Involvement and Engagement · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLived experienceOpioidCritically illPsychologyMedicineEngineering ethicsEngineeringPsychotherapistIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.714
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Involvement and EngagementSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207