MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982600553

International review on the use of information for the regulation of health and social care

2014· report· en· W6982600553 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) · 2014
Typereport
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaLiquationDiafiltrationTriacetinHemopericardiumEmperipolesis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this international review is to identify and analyse how regulators and agencies from international jurisdictions use information to inform their work to improve the safety and quality of health and social care in their jurisdictions. The eight jurisdictions reviewed are as follows: New Zealand, Canada – Ontario, England, the Netherlands, Denmark, Scotland, Wales (summary), Northern Ireland (summary)

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)0.025
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0140.022
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library)Same topicPentecostalism and Christianity StudiesFrench-language works237,207