MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937551256 · doi:10.18438/b8n613

Systematic Reviews and Evidence Based Library and Information Practice

2009· article· en· W1937551256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alison Brettle

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsSystematic reviewField (mathematics)Library scienceComputer scienceData scienceMedical educationMEDLINEMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary presents a rationale for undertaking systematic reviews in library and information practice. As library and information practitioners have the skills to undertake systematic reviews, it is questioned why there are not more in the field. The barriers and challenges to undertaking systematic reviews are discussed.

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)0.289
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.577
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2890.577
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.005
Bibliometrics0.0240.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0150.016
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0180.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207