MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974609772 · doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2008.04.009

Writing an Effective Literature Review

2008· article· en· W1974609772 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Bolderston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersU.S. National Library of Medicine
KeywordsSystematic reviewReading (process)Subject (documents)Foundation (evidence)Engineering ethicsComputer scienceField (mathematics)Management scienceProcess (computing)Data scienceLibrary scienceMEDLINEPolitical scienceEngineering

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.364
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.364
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0370.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.014

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.345 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations125
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciencesSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207