MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401687706 · doi:10.7202/1112273ar

National Engagement in Canadian Bioethics: Insights from the CBS-SCB 2023 Workshop and Community Forum

2024· article· en· W4401687706 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Victoria Seavilleklein, Amanda Porter, Hazar Haidar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiDalhousie UniversityUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioethicsPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National Engagement in Canadian Bioethics: Insights from the CBS-SCB 2023 Workshop and Community Forum. Un article de la revue Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique (Numéro hors-thème & Ateliers de la SCB) diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0400.014
Scholarly communication0.0190.006
Open science0.0040.019
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BioethicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207