MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966482779 · doi:10.1378/chest.13-2828

Adaptation of Trustworthy Guidelines Developed Using the GRADE Methodology

2014· article· en· W1966482779 on OpenAlexaff
Annette Kristiansen, Linn Brandt, Thomas Agoritsas, Elie A. Akl, Eivind Berge, Johan Bondi, Anders Erik Astrup Dahm, Lars‐Petter Granan, Sigrun Halvorsen, Pål-Andre Holme, Anne Flem Jacobsen, Eva‐Marie Jacobsen, Ignacio Neumann, Per Morten Sandset, T. Sætre, Arnljot Tveit, Trond Vartdal, Gordon Guyatt, Per Olav Vandvik

Bibliographic record

VenueCHEST Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSanofi
KeywordsGuidelineProcess managementAdaptation (eye)Transparency (behavior)MedicineProcess (computing)Grading (engineering)ChecklistComputer scienceKnowledge managementPsychologyEngineeringPathology

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)0.147
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.525
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1470.525
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.798
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCHEST JournalSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207