MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W773484761 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.141076

Health research among hard-to-reach people: six degrees of sampling

2015· review· en· W773484761 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mary M. O. Aglipay, John Wylie, Ann Jolly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaGovernment of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaManitoba Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTuberculosisMedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicineGerontologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many marginalized populations face severe health inequities in developed countries. These include people who are poor, homeless, sell sex or use alcohol or illegal drugs. In Toronto, an estimated 19% of homeless people who had a diagnosis of active tuberculosis during 1998–2007 died within 12

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)0.168
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.240
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1680.240
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207