MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133092076

Pets in Families: What Family Physicians Should Know and Do

2014· other· en· W7133092076 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Florence A. Kim, Kate Hodgson

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto
KeywordsFamily memberDiseaseMEDLINEHuman lifeSocial relationshipAffect (linguistics)Social responsibilityClinical Practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pets are important members of families. They provide emotional support, social capital, and are strong motivators in making positive lifestyle changes that improve human health. Pets also have direct and positive impact on human health–zooeyia. Family physicians can use the Pet Query practice tool to uncover information about a patient’s home life and family structure and to strengthen the patient-physician therapeutic alliance. Managing risks of zoonotic disease and injury is not the primary nor the sole responsibility of family physicians, but rather an opportunity for interprofessional collaboration with veterinarians.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.013

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.317
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

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
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→French-language works237,207→