MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407224805 · doi:10.1503/cjs.001025

IA et médecine — un mariage incontournable, mais encore imparfait

2025· editorial· fr· W4407224805 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Edward J. Harvey, Chad G. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selon l’opinion publique et de soi-disant promesses d’« efficience », l’intelligence artificielle (IA) aidera la médecine. OpenAI, SoftBank et Oracle ont annoncé un projet d’infrastructure d’IA évalué à 500 milliards de dollars aux États-Unis[1][1]. De retour à la tête d’OpenAI

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0220.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.011

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Surgery→Same topicHealthcare Systems and Practices→French-language works237,207→