MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608434538

Elementos para la valoración y uso práctico de los ensayos clínicos. Parte II: Búsqueda, valoración y uso de los resultados

2010· article· es· W1608434538 on OpenAlexaff
Villar Centeno, C Juan

Bibliographic record

VenueMedunab · 2010
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumen Un ensayo clinico aleatorizado (ECA) bien elaborado provee informacion al personal de salud interesado en obtener informacion valida sobre el efecto de intervenciones en salud que busca prevenir o tratar un problema de salud. Los usuarios de los ECA deben por tanto conocer las fuentes confiables que les permita acceder facil y rapidamente a los ECA que buscan resolver las preguntas surgidas de su propia practica clinica. Una vez identificado un ECA relevante para el problema, un lector con elementos que le permitan juzgar su validez y aplicabilidad hara un uso mas adecuado de ellos. Palabras clave: Ensayos clinicos, metodologia.

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)0.152
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.361
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1520.361
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.010
Bibliometrics0.0200.022
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.361
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedunabSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207