MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1786378138 · doi:10.18438/b8cp5z

Research Methods: Systematic Reviews

2013· article· en· W1786378138 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Virginia Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSystematic reviewData scienceLibrary scienceInformation retrievalManagement scienceMEDLINEPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No abstract.

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.348
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 score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.348
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.006
Bibliometrics0.0380.037
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1390.044

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 head0.759
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207