MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096554341

© 2005 CMA Media Inc. or its licensors Letters

2005· article· en· W7096554341 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIrish and British Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)Quality (philosophy)Regulatory authorityPublic trustRegulatory stateDiscipline
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physician, regulate thyself! We could not agree more with aCMAJ editorial1 that suggests confidence in physicians is at the core of what we do. We also agree that strong licensing and regulatory bodies are needed. Long before the Shipman case came to light in the United Kingdom, med-ical regulatory authorities in Canada began making significant progress to-ward transparency and increased public accountability. There are now more public representatives on the councils of the regulatory authorities, and most disciplinary hearings are open to the public and the media. Furthermore, the medical regula-tory authorities recognize that a physi-cian’s performance may decline over time, and that the quality and safety of any individual physician’s practice need regular review. Thus, the top priority for the Federation of Medical Regula-tory Authorities of Canada is revalida-tion of licensure. Medical regulatory authorities around the world are examining the recommendations in the fifth report of the Shipman Inquiry2 with a view to doing everything possible to prevent a similar occurrence in their own juris-dictions. Although our organizations must learn from this sad and appalling case, it is an extreme example of failure in a multicomponent system and should not be viewed as representative of the system as a whole.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7140.524

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIrish and British StudiesFrench-language works237,207