MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003479595 · doi:10.1007/s10393-014-0958-3

Evaluating Communities of Practice and Knowledge Networks: A Systematic Scoping Review of Evaluation Frameworks

2014· article· en· W2003479595 on OpenAlexaff
Kaileah McKellar, Kristen Pitzul, Juliana Yi, Donald C. Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoHealth · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryKnowledge managementAnimal ecologyHealth careManagement scienceComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringEcology

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)0.365
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.588
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3650.588
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.012
Bibliometrics0.0350.028
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0160.017
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0060.004
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 head0.641
GPT teacher head0.735
Teacher spread0.094 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations83
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEcoHealthSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207