MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1886779568

A Guide To Producing an Evidence-based Report

2007· article· en· W1886779568 on OpenAlexaff
James L. Leake

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Best evidenceEvidence-based practiceComputer scienceEvidence-based medicineHealth carePsychologyMedical educationKnowledge managementData scienceMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence-based practice is a way to accelerate useful knowledge from research into clinical health-care practice. For the practitioner, it is a process of lifelong, self-directed learning. This Guide teaches you to produce an evidence-based report in which you define the problem, search for the evidence, select the best evidence, and write-up your findings under headings.

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)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.273
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.273
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.133

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Sciences Research and Education→French-language works237,207→