MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001743465 · doi:10.1017/s146625231400005x

An introduction to systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety

2014· article· en· W2001743465 on OpenAlexaff
Annette M. O’Connor, Jan M. Sargeant

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Health Research Reviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewAnimal welfareRisk analysis (engineering)Animal healthMedicineSystematic errorIntervention (counseling)MEDLINEPolitical scienceVeterinary medicineBiologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we provide an introduction to systematic reviews and discuss the process for conducting systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety. The research synthesis need that can be addressed by a systematic review is discussed. The use of systematic reviews to address questions about intervention effects, etiology, diagnostic tests evaluation and disease burden are discussed. The steps included in a systematic review are described.

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.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0220.025
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.009

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 head0.822
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations26
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Health Research ReviewsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207