MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394844330 · doi:10.1007/s11538-024-01282-4

Integrating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion into Preclinical, Clinical, and Public Health Mathematical Models

2024· article· en· W4394844330 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Sheen, Lee Curtin, Stacey D. Finley, Anna Konstorum, Reginald L. McGee, Morgan Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Mathematical Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsMultitudeDiversity (politics)Management scienceEquity (law)Inclusion (mineral)Public healthMathematical modelPlenary sessionEngineering ethicsSession (web analytics)Mathematical and theoretical biologyComputer scienceBiologyPolitical scienceMedicineSociologyMathematicsBioinformaticsSocial scienceEngineeringLibrary sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mathematical modelling applied to preclinical, clinical, and public health research is critical for our understanding of a multitude of biological principles. Biology is fundamentally heterogeneous, and mathematical modelling must meet the challenge of variability head on to ensure the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are integrated into quantitative analyses. Here we provide a follow-up perspective on the DEI plenary session held at the 2023 Society for Mathematical Biology Annual Meeting to discuss key issues for the increased integration of DEI in mathematical modelling in biology.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Mathematical BiologySame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207