MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038356604

HSE Your Service Your Say: Anonymised Complaints Casebook Q1 2019

2019· report· en· W7038356604 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) · 2019
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasebookService (business)Quarter (Canadian coin)Service provider
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This casebook presents some of
\nthe various complaints investigated in quarter two and their outcomes.
\nThe publication of this casebook is part of the HSE’s commitment to use complaints as a tool for learning
\nand to facilitate the sharing of that learning. In addition, the publication of the casebook fulfils a
\nrecommendation by the Ombudsman in his report, Learning to Get Better and further progresses the
\nHSE’s promise to fully implement all recommendations from the Ombudsman’s report pertaining to the
\nHSE by the end of 2019.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.294 · 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