MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2032247159 · doi:10.1332/174426411x603470

The challenges of evaluating large-scale, multi-partner programmes: the case of NIHR CLAHRCs

2011· article· en· W2032247159 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Graham Martin, Vicky Ward, Jane Hendy, Emma Rowley, Susan Nancarrow, Janet Heaton, Nicky Britten, Sandra L. Fielden, Steven Ariss

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence & Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsHealth carePsychological interventionGovernment (linguistics)Scale (ratio)Public relationsBusinessKnowledge managementPolitical scienceNursingMedicineComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.491
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.442
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4910.442
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0070.015
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.180 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence & Policy→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→