MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bias in transfusion research: from study design to result reporting

2010· review· en· W1818700007 on OpenAlexafffund
Donald M. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCitationLibrary scienceGeneral partnershipMedicinePsychologyFamily medicinePolitical scienceComputer scienceLaw

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)0.313
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.573
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3130.573
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.426
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.006 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207