MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028758832 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60903-8

An international registry of systematic-review protocols

2010· article· en· W2028758832 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Booth, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, David Moher, Mark Petticrew, Lesley Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineComputer science

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptScholarly communicationOpen science
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.391
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.588
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3910.588
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.009
Bibliometrics0.0540.066
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0240.016
Open science0.0130.014
Research integrity0.0150.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.086

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 head0.751
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchScholarly communicationOpen science

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreMethods · Dataset

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

Citations521
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207