MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts

2015· review· en· W1145945895 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa Hartling, Jeanne‐Marie Guise, Elisabeth Kato, Johanna Anderson, Suzanne Belinson, Elise Berliner, Donna M Dryden, Robin Featherstone, Matthew D. Mitchell, Makalapua Motu’apuaka, Hussein Z Noorani, Robin Paynter, Karen A. Robinson, Karen M Schoelles, Craig A. Umscheid, Evelyn P Whitlock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsCategorizationSystematic reviewComputer scienceData scienceManagement scienceMEDLINEArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.181
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.561
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 score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1810.561
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.011
Bibliometrics0.0600.066
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0160.014
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.955
GPT teacher head0.744
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations77
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207