MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067137750

Let’s Talk LMCC (S01E01): Glucose Abnormalities

2023· article· en· W7067137750 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

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Management and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlice (programming language)Journal editorMEDLINEAssociate editor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welcome to the McGill Journal of Medicine (MJM) LMCC review. This podcast series was created to aid medical students studying for the Canadian Medical Council (MCC)’s licensing exam. Each episode is created based on specific LMCC objectives and is divided into 2 parts. In part one we provide an overview of the topic with the help of experts in the field, followed by Part 2 where we review LMCC styled questions to help consolidate knowledge. In this episode, we welcome our expert advisor, Dr. Alice Cheng, Endocrinologist and Associate Professor at the University of Toronto to speak on LMCC Objective 37-1* Glucose Abnormalities. This episode was written by Meryem Talbo and Dr. Alice Cheng, edited by Esther Kang, Katherine Lan and Susan Wang. Please see our website www.mjmmed.com for more information, including a link to show notes.

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), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.121 · 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