MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906641574 · doi:10.1002/ebch.1936

Cochrane in context: Swimming training for asthma in children and adolescents aged 18 years and under

2013· article· en· W1906641574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sean Beggs, Julia AE Walters

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNiceMedicineExcellenceAsthmaContext (archaeology)Systematic reviewFamily medicineCochrane collaborationPediatricsChild healthMEDLINEAlternative medicineCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cochrane Review: Swimming training for asthma in children and adolescents aged 18 years and under Beggs S, Foong YC, Le HCT, Noor D, Wood‐Baker R, Walters JAE. Swimming training for asthma in children and adolescents aged 18 years and under. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD009607. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009607.pub2 This companion piece to the review, “Swimming training for asthma in children and adolescents aged 18 years and under,” contains the following pieces: The abstract of the review A commentary from one or more of the review authors, explaining why the review team felt the review as an important once to produce A review of clinical practice guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), United Kingdom Some other recently published references on this topic

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.341 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207