MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402602582 · doi:10.1007/s41669-024-00522-6

Publisher Correction: Health Technology Assessment Reports for Non-Oncology Medications in Canada from 2018 to 2022: Methodological Critiques on Manufacturers’ Submissions and a Comparison Between Manufacturer and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Analyses

2024· erratum· en· W4402602582 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fatemeh Mirzayeh Fashami, Jean‐Éric Tarride, Behnam Sadeghirad, Kimia Hariri, Amirreza Peyrovinasab, Mitchell Levine

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoEconomics - Open · 2024
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityImpactMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)MedicineEngineering ethicsEngineeringSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.263
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.263
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.003
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0100.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.024

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 head0.475
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoEconomics - OpenSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207