MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010609528 · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2014.05.002

GRADE Leitlinien: 13. Erstellen von Summary-of-Findings-Tabellen und Evidenzprofilen – kontinuierliche Endpunkte

2014· article· de· W2010609528 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 · 2014
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)GuidelineInterpretation (philosophy)Measure (data warehouse)Outcome (game theory)Quality (philosophy)Duration (music)Computer scienceStatisticsMathematicsMedicineData mining

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)0.212
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
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), 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 score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2120.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.011
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0130.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.023

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.075 · 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