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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.124
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1240.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.013

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 head0.361
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