MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1948715096 · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1144

Commentary for history special issue of <i>Research Synthesis Methods</i>

2015· article· en· W1948715096 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Synthesis Methods · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsComputer scienceManagement scienceResearch methodologyData scienceSociologyEconomicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Synthesis MethodsVolume 6, Issue 3 p. 268-271 Commentary Commentary for history special issue of Research Synthesis Methods Iain Chalmers, Corresponding Author Iain Chalmers James Lind Initiative, Oxford, OX2 7LG UK Correspondence to: Iain Chalmers, James Lind Initiative, Oxford, OX2 7LG, UK [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Iain Chalmers, Corresponding Author Iain Chalmers James Lind Initiative, Oxford, OX2 7LG UK Correspondence to: Iain Chalmers, James Lind Initiative, Oxford, OX2 7LG, UK [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 10 June 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1144Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. 1992. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. JAMA 268: 240–248. Chalmers I. 1979. Randomized Controlled Trials of Fetal Monitoring 1973–1977. In O Thalhammer, K Baumgarten, A Pollak. (eds.). Perinatal Medicine (pp. 260–265). Stuttgart: Georg Thieme. Chalmers I. 2013. Health Research Authority's great leap forward on UK trial registration. BMJ 3479:f5776 Chalmers I, Altman DG. 1995. Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ Publications. Chalmers I, Nylenna M. 2014. A new network to promote evidence-based research. Lancet 384: 1903–04. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. 2002. A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions 25: 12–37. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, Ioannidis JPA, Oliver S. 2014. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383: 7–16. Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith H, Kunzler A-M. 1977. Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 297: 1091–96. Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I. 2007. Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 100: 187–190. Cooper HM. 1982. Scientific principles for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research 52: 291–302. Daniels M, Hill AB. 1952. Chemotherapy of pulmonary tuberculosis in young adults: an analysis of the combined results of three medical research council trials. BMJ 1: 1162–1168. Davis JM. 1976. Overview: maintenance therapy in psychiatry: II. Affective disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry 133: 1–13. Dickersin K, Chalmers F. 2014. Thomas C. Chalmers (1917–1995): a pioneer of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation (www.jameslindlibrary.org). Dickersin K, Chalmers I. 2010. Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation (www.jameslindlibrary.org). Feldman KA. 1971. Using the work of others: some observations on reviewing and integrating. Sociology of Education 44: 86–102. Glass GV. 1976. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 10: 3–8. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD. 2009. Medicine's methodological debt to the social sciences. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation (www.jameslindlibrary.org). Health Research Authority. 2014. Guidance. Guidance: specific questions that need answering when considering the design of clinical trials. Available from: http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2014/05/guidance-questions-considerations-clinical-trials.pdf (accessed Nov 18, 2014). Jenicek M. 1987. Méta-analyse en médecine. Évaluation et synthèse de l'information clinique et épidémiologique. [Meta-analysis in medicine: evaluation and synthesis of clinical and epidemiological information]. St.Hyacinthe and Paris: EDISEM and Maloine Éditeurs. Jenicek M. 2006. Méta-analyse en médecine: the first book on systematic reviews in medicine. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation (www.jameslindlibrary.org). Kleinert S, Benham L, Collingridge D, Summerskill W, Horton R. 2014. Further emphasis on research in context. Lancet 384: 2176–77. Leitch I. 1959. The Place of Analytical and Critical Reviews in Any Growing Biological Science and the Service they may Render to Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Scientific Information, 2 Vols. Washington DC: National Academies Press, p. 571-588. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. 1984. Summing up. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Light RJ, Smith PV 1971. Accumulating evidence: procedures for resolving contradictions among research studies. Harvard Educational Review 41: 429–471. Mahoney MJ. 1977. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1: 161–75. Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Nasser M, Bossuyt PMM, Korevaar DA, Graham ID, Ravaud P, Boutron I. In preparation. Increasing value, reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening. National Institute for Health Research. 2013. Guidance notes for applicants that ensure all primary research is informed by a review of the existing literature. Version 5. May. Available from: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/77217/Guidance-notes_literature-review.pdf (accessed Nov 18, 2014). Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, Mantel N, McPherson K, Peto J, Smith PG. 1977. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples. British Journal of Cancer 35: 1–39. Park WH, Bullowa JGM, Rosenbluth NM. 1928. The treatment of lobar pneumonia with refined specific antibacterial serum. JAMA 91: 1503–1508. Petrosino A. 2004. Charles Frederick [Fred] Mosteller (1916–2006). JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation (www.jameslindlibrary.org). Pratt JG, Rhine JB, Smith BM, Stuart CE, Greenwood JA. 1940. Extra-Sensory Perception after Sixty Years: A Critical Appraisal of the Research in Extra-Sensory Perception. New York: Henry Holt. Rosenthal R. 1979. The 'file drawer problem' and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86: 638–641. Simes RJ. 1986. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 4: 1529–41. Smart RG. 1964. The importance of negative results in psychological research. Canadian Psychologist 5: 225–232. Smith ML, Glass GV. 1977. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist 32: 752–760. Smith A, Traganza E, Harrison G. 1969. Studies on the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs. Psychopharmacol Bulletin (suppl) 1-53: 1–20. Sterling TD. 1959. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance – or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association 54: 30–34. Stjernswärd J. 1974. Decreased survival related to irradiation postoperatively in early breast cancer. Lancet 304: 1285–1286. Stjernswärd J. 2009. Meta-analysis as a manifestation of 'bondförnuft' ('peasant sense'). JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation (www.jameslindlibrary.org). Wechsler H, Grosser GH, Greenblatt M. 1965. Research evaluating antidepressant medications on hospitalized mental patients: a survey of published reports during a five-year period. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 141: 231–239. Citing Literature Volume6, Issue3Special Issue: The Origins of Modern Meta‐analysisSeptember 2015Pages 268-271 ReferencesRelatedInformation

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.480
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.086 · 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