MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983725709 · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.07.299

Corrigendum to: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery 2010;8:336–341

2010· erratum· en· W1983725709 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

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery · 2010
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatement (logic)Systematic reviewMeta-analysisMEDLINEGeneral surgeryMedical physicsInternal medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Original publication of the PRISMA statement in the International Journal of Surgery should have acknowledged that in order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA statement, the article is freely accessible on bmj.com and has also been previously published in PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, please see the PRISMA website (www.prisma-statement.org/).

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)0.385
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.424
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3850.424
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.018
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0060.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.907
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.321 · 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