MétaCan
Menu
Cohort builder

4,299,418 works, Canadian by any of four routes.

Every filter state is a URL; the URL is the query; the query is citable via /q/⟨hash⟩. The page, the API and the export parse the same parameters.

The current cohort, streamed from the database: every work column, the machine labels, the provisional scores, and the per-row validation status. Exports are capped at 100,000 rows. Mints a permanent /q/ link for this exact query. The same filters always produce the same link, whoever asks.

Search term
Author
Year range
Sort
Language
Type
Field
Venue
Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Retraction
Abstract
Evidence source
Study design
Label agreement
Label status

Direct Codex and Gemma labels are unvalidated and sparse. Distilled predictions cover the full frame and are also unvalidated. Choose the evidence source explicitly; absence of a direct label is never a negative label.

affaffiliation
fundfunder
venuejournal
aboutaboutness

The four routes compose: require the funder route and exclude affiliation to get the funder-only stratum no affiliation-based frame ever sees.

1,557 results · 1 filter active ·
Results by year
20002025
Publication date
Categories
Machine labels · sparse coverage
Evidence
Language
Type
Citations
An unlabeled work is unknown, not a negative. Label coverage is reported on every query.
1,557 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 31 of 32

Labels cover 46 of 1,557 works in this cohort. The rest are unlabeled, which is not a negative label: the label table is sparse today and grows as labeling rounds land.

Distilled predictions cover 1,557 of 1,557 works in this cohort. Predictions are machine_predicted_unvalidated. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work (title-only); the Codex side is a distilled, calibrated classifier. Candidate is the union; consensus is the intersection.

affunlabeled
Bioequivalence
László Endrényi
2014· other· en· Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online· Mathematics
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affunlabeled
Diagnostic Tests, Likelihood Ratio
Robin S. Roberts
2014· other· en· Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online· Mathematics
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affno abstractgemma · no categorygpt · no categorymodels agree
Book Review: Textbook of Clinical Trials
Marc Levine
2004· article· en· Annals of Pharmacotherapy· Mathematics
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Nonrandomized controlled clinical trials
Turki Al Garni, Amr A. Arafat, Bader Alqarni, Abdulrahman Alqahtani
2025· book-chapter· en· Elsevier eBooks· Mathematics
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Ensuring the Quality of Multiple-Choice Tests
Valérie Dory, Kate Allan, Leora Birnbaum, Stuart Lubarsky, Joyce Pickering, Meredith Young
2019· article· en· Academic Medicine· Mathematics
machine prediction:candidate · metaresearchconsensus · metaresearch
0
citations
affno abstractunlabeled
Reply to Comment
Barry Lynch, Charles C. Capen, Earle R. Nestmann, Gauke Veenstra, James A. Deyo
2000· article· en· Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology· Mathematics
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations
affunlabeled
Introduction to Clinical Trial Research
Jay Park, J. Kyle Wathen, Edward J. Mills
2023· book-chapter· en· Cambridge University Press eBooks· Mathematics
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
0
citations

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About