MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022190222 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-1

Establishing a new journal for systematic review products

2012· article· en· W2022190222 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

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingSystematic reviewVariety (cybernetics)MedicineScope (computer science)Engineering ethicsPublic relationsMEDLINEData scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welcome to a new age in publishing systematic reviews. We hope the launch of Systematic Reviews will resonate with a broad spectrum of readers interested in using them in a variety of ways, such as providing comprehensive and up to date evidence for patient management, informing health policy, and developing rigorous practice guidelines. Systematic reviews are increasingly popular. Our journal is committed to publishing a wide variety of well conducted and transparently reported systematic reviews and associated research. We are open access and electronic and not confined by space and so offer scope for publishing reviews in detail and providing a modern and innovative approach to publishing. We look forward to participating in the voyage with all of our readers.

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)0.615
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.708
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6150.708
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.017

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 head0.762
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.217 · 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