MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973035722 · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.015

GRADE Leitlinien: 5. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz – Publikationsbias

2012· article· de· W1973035722 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · 2012
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunnel plotPublication biasObservational studySuspectSample size determinationMeta-analysisMedicinePsychologyStatisticsMathematics

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.

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)0.266
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2660.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.012
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0110.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.091

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 head0.738
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.154 · 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